delete_edit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden; it usefully discloses that all uncommitted changes are removed and that nothing reaches the published state, which signals a destructive, non-publishing operation. It does not say whether the discard is reversible, whether the edit record itself is deleted or just its changes reverted, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus its most important consequence ('Nothing is published') are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main risk (no publication) but omits reversibility, resulting state of the edit, and the meaning of editId, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is only 50%: packageName is documented with an example in the schema, but editId is a bare string with no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all — not which edit identifiers are valid, nor what packageName scoping implies — so the undocumented parameter is left entirely to inference from its name.

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') on a specific resource ('an open edit' and its uncommitted changes) and scopes the outcome with 'Nothing is published.' An agent can distinguish this from commit_edit or validate_edit by the fact that changes are thrown away rather than applied, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'open edit and every uncommitted change' implies the precondition (there must be an active edit with pending work) and 'Nothing is published' hints at the contrast with commit_edit, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no named alternative.

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