discard_version

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

The description implies destructive behavior but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., impact on the release), or whether the operation is idempotent. With no annotations, the description should explicitly address these aspects.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise without being overly brief.

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 simple schema (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to provide critical behavioral context such as when the operation is valid, error conditions, or post-operation state.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (versionId) with a description of expected ID format. The tool description adds context about discarding drafts or versions but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool discards or deletes a draft or version document, distinguishing it from creation tools. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like release_action or document_action, which might also handle deletion.

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; the description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't clarify whether the version must be in draft status before discarding.

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