aegis_discard

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

The only annotation is a title ("Discard changes"); there is no destructiveHint or readOnlyHint, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that the working copy is destroyed irreversibly, whether the run itself survives, or whether any confirmation is possible — the most important facts for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail a destructive tool needs rather than being tight and complete.

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, irreversible mutation with no safety annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The agent cannot tell what happens to the run record afterward, whether the discard is recoverable, or how it interacts with aegis_apply.

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 100%: 'run' is documented as a run id or 'last', and 'project' as an absolute path defaulting to the server's cwd. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Throw away a run's working copy" gives a concrete verb (discard) and a concrete resource (a run's working copy), which is distinguishable from siblings like aegis_apply, aegis_diff, and aegis_run. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to discard versus when to inspect with aegis_diff or aegis_runs first, and no mention of preconditions or required state. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling names.

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