Discard Play Console edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that changes are discarded and not applied, which is the most important fact. However it omits that the edit becomes invalid/unusable afterward, whether the operation is irreversible, and any auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with the essential consequence front-loaded and no filler. Every word 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantic an agent needs. It is slightly thin on the destructive/irreversible implications, which matters because no annotations supply that safety profile.

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 (editId, packageName), including the cross-reference to play_create_edit, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline.

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 (discards) and resource (an in-progress edit) with the defining consequence 'without applying any of its changes'. This implicitly distinguishes it from play_commit_edit and play_validate_edit, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied: use this to abandon an edit session rather than commit it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. an edit must have been created via play_create_edit), and no named alternative such as play_commit_edit.

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