Discard an uncommitted in-memory artifact proposal, preventing it from being saved while leaving committed files untouched.
Discard an uncommitted in-memory artifact proposal; committed files are untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'Discard' an artifact proposal, which is a mutating/destructive action on in-memory state. This is an annotation contradiction, even if committed files remain untouched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a useful scope caveat. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the annotation contradiction leaves side effects unclear, and the description provides no parameter guidance for job_id. With no output schema, a bit more detail about expected behavior and parameter role would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for job_id, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation by explaining how job_id selects the proposal to discard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Discard' and identifies the exact resource: 'uncommitted in-memory artifact proposal.' The clarifying clause 'committed files are untouched' further distinguishes it from commit_artifact and other artifact lifecycle tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used to abandon an in-progress artifact proposal, and the 'committed files are untouched' note gives some context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool relative to sibling tools like commit_artifact or preview_artifact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.