fgui_discard_document

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 transparently states the destructive nature (discarding all unsaved modifications) and the reload action. It does not explicitly warn about irreversibility, but 'discard' strongly implies it.

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 immediately states the verb and object, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the operation (discard and reload), the description fully conveys the behavior. Since an output schema exists, no return-value details are needed, and the one-sentence explanation is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the described action is complete as-is. With an empty schema, no additional parameter meaning is needed, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('discard') and clearly identifies the resource ('all unsaved modifications of the current document') and the action ('reload the disk version'). This distinguishes it from siblings like fgui_save_document and fgui_undo.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you want to discard all unsaved changes and reload the saved version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intent is understandable from the description alone.

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