skylight_undo_auto_creation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive action but does not specify what gets destroyed (e.g., is the intent deleted? drafts permanently removed?), whether the operation is reversible, or required permissions. Lacks necessary detail for safe invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no separate usage note or parameter details). It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on important aspects.

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?

Given the lack of schema descriptions and output schema, the description should provide more context about auto-creation intents and drafts. It does not explain the overall operation or relationship to other auto-creation tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not. The required 'id' and optional 'frameId' are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their purpose (e.g., whether 'id' refers to the intent ID). This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the action 'undo/discard' and the resource 'AI auto-creation intent and its drafts'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'skylight_approve_auto_creation' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it could be more precise about what 'discard' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to approve instead of undo). No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given, leaving the agent to infer based solely on tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.