discard_editDiscards a Google Play Console draft edit and deletes all uncommitted changes; requires confirmDiscard=true to prevent accidental data loss.
MUTATES Play Console draft state: deletes the edit and all its uncommitted changes. Requires confirmDiscard=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| editId | Yes | ||
| packageName | Yes | ||
| confirmDiscard | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's bar for disclosure is lower. It still adds real value by naming what is destroyed (the edit plus all uncommitted changes) and the operational prerequisite confirmDiscard=true. It does not say whether the editId becomes unusable afterward or what a caller gains from the confirmation beyond the schema const, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning and the loss of uncommitted changes, followed by the required confirmation. Nothing extraneous and no burying of the destructive consequence.
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?
For a destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core hazard and the confirmation gate, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain on post-condition state (does the edit ID survive) and on the other two parameters.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden. It reinforces confirmDiscard=true as a required gate, which is meaningful, but packageName and editId are left to self-evident naming and their regex patterns, so the gap is only partly compensated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: deletes the edit and all its uncommitted changes in Play Console draft state. That implicitly separates it from get_edit, validate_edit and commit_edit, which deal with the same edit but do not destroy it.
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?
"Deletes the edit and all its uncommitted changes" implies this is the abandon-work path rather than the commit path, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.