reset_blog_post_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and that it restores the live version. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool, though it could add detail about what happens to the draft (e.g., whether it is deleted or overwritten) and any 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning is placed immediately after. Every sentence 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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the result, and the safety warning. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that post_id is required, but the schema already marks it required.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description implies the post_id parameter by referring to 'a blog post', but it does not explicitly explain that post_id identifies which blog post's draft to reset. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value 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 verb 'Discard draft changes' and the resource 'blog post', and distinguishes it from the live version. It is specific and immediately understandable, and it differentiates from siblings like update_blog_post_draft and reset_draft by naming the exact action and resource.

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 explicitly warns that the action is destructive and irreversible, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to use them, but the destructive warning provides clear context for when to use this tool versus a non-destructive update.

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