fabricsRevertFabricCandidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Discard' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the discarded candidate (e.g., permanent deletion). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure states, error conditions) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.

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%, with both parameters ('fabricId' and 'name') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., clarifying what 'discard' entails for these parameters), so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Discard') and target ('a specific candidate configuration'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabricsCommitFabricCandidate' or 'fabricsReviewFabricCandidate', but the verb 'discard' implies a distinct destructive operation versus committing or reviewing.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a candidate to exist), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'fabricsCommitFabricCandidate' or 'fabricsReviewFabricCandidate', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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