discard_rhr_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'DESTRUCTIVE: the request will be cancelled' only restates structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about irreversibility, whether the rhr can be recreated, required permissions, or effects on related tasks.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destructive warning. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, plus no output schema to explain, the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage context distinguishing it from the other rhr and cancellation tools.

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% for both parameters (id and confirm), so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, sourcing, or format detail; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pair (cancel/close) and a specific resource (Remote Hands request), with the internal operation name 'rhr/discard' disambiguating it from create_rhr_request, list_rhr_requests, and add_rhr_comment. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource+action combination is unambiguous within the sibling set.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the schema-level confirm flag, and no routing to alternatives such as delete_cancellation_request or other rhr management tools. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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