discard_draft_changes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action 'discard unpublished draft changes' but fails to disclose consequences such as irreversibility, whether it affects only the local draft or server state, or any required permissions.

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?

At four words, the description is concise but overly brief. While it front-loads the action, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it minimally informative without earning its place through completeness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter lacking description, the description is insufficient. It does not address what happens after discard, how to confirm success, or any side effects, leaving the agent guessing.

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?

The single parameter 'project_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no explanation of what the parameter represents or how it should be obtained, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to correctly fill it.

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The description 'Discard unpublished draft changes' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool discards draft changes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'accept_preview' or 'delete_project' by focusing specifically on unpublished drafts.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or state conditions (e.g., existence of a draft) necessary for invocation.

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