discard_task_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a saved change and owned worktree are deleted, which identifies the destructive scope, but it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, task state after discard, and what the operation returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the destructive action is stated first. It is concise, though the sparse structure leaves important behavior unstated for a destructive tool.

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?

The tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, so the description needs to do more. It identifies what is deleted but does not cover usage conditions, parameter meaning, irreversibility, or expected outcome.

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 0%, and the description never explains the required task_id parameter or how a task should be identified. The schema alone provides only the parameter name and type, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (an isolated task's saved change and owned worktree), so the tool's purpose is clear. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools like apply_task_changes and get_task_changes, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus apply_task_changes, cancel_task, or other sibling tools. The word 'Explicitly' hints that deletion is intentional, but there is no when-to-use condition, exclusion, or alternative routing.

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