Plan Working Head discard

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations by clarifying nothing is modified. It adds the concrete detail that files and pointers remain unchanged, but beyond that it does not disclose additional behavior such as return format, plan semantics, or edge cases.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second reinforces the safety guarantee, making every word earn 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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks operation-specific context: it never states that this plan is about discarding a working revision, nor does it mention the apply counterpart. Since there is no output schema, some note about what the plan represents would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for templateId, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to explain how templateId relates to the discard planning process, leaving a clear semantic gap.

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 states 'Create a read-only lifecycle plan,' which is a clear action, but it never mentions the specific operation 'discard working revision.' On its own, the description would not distinguish this tool from other plan_* siblings; the name and title provide the missing specificity.

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 usage during the planning phase by emphasizing 'read-only' and 'No files or pointers are changed,' but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus apply_discard_working_revision or other plan tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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