akb_discard_image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the key operational boundary (uncommitted vs. claimed/retained images) and states that already-claimed images cannot be discarded. It doesn't explicitly say the action is permanent or irreversible, but 'Discard' and 'never committed' strongly imply destructive cleanup.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant information; the action and primary constraint are front-loaded, the usage condition follows, and the limitation closes. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive cleanup tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies essential operational context: when to use it, what cannot be discarded, and how to identify the source URL. It could additionally state that the action is irreversible or describe the success/error response, but the core call-correctness information is present.

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%, and the description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema itself. The references to the URL returned by akb_put_image and to akb_put/akb_update provide useful context but don't elaborate on individual parameters.

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 ('Discard') and resource ('document image upload that was never committed'), and distinguishes the tool's scope from the related put/update flows. Among siblings, it is the only cleanup/discard operation for unpublished image uploads.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this only to clean up after a failed or abandoned akb_put/akb_update,' giving a precise trigger condition. It also provides an exclusion rule: images already claimed by a document or retained by a Git revision cannot be discarded, so an agent knows when not to call it.

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