discard_staged_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals a key behavioral aspect—this operation does not change Blender—but does not disclose other important details such as idempotency, whether the discard is reversible, or any side effects on the patch data. More specifics would be needed for full transparency.

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, single-purpose sentence without extraneous words. It effectively communicates the tool's function in as few words as possible, demonstrating excellent conciseness and structure.

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 simple tool with an optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could be improved by noting the consequence of discarding (e.g., the patch is permanently lost), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use.

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 lone parameter instance_id has no description in the schema, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name alone.

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 names the resource 'staged patch,' clearly identifying what the tool does. The phrase 'without changing Blender' adds a distinguishing context, differentiating it from sibling tools like apply_staged_patch or undo_last_apply.

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 implies the tool is for discarding a staged patch, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like apply_staged_patch or get_staged_patch. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage context is only implicitly conveyed.

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