discard_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it drops staged changes, implying a destructive action, but it does not warn about irreversibility, side effects on the document, or any prerequisites. The description adds little beyond the tool's name and basic action, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the core capability and a key parameter detail efficiently. However, it is slightly too brief to be fully helpful, though the structure is clean and wastes no words.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and very low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover when to use it, side effects, or parameter details. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns, but the overall context is lacking for safe and correct usage.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It mentions 'specific change ids' but does not explain the format of change_ids, what path refers to, or how they relate. It also fails to clarify that change_ids is optional or its default behavior. The description adds minimal value for the two parameters.

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 'drop' and clearly identifies the resource 'staged changes'. It also clarifies that it can handle all changes or specific ones via 'change ids', which distinguishes it from siblings like apply_changes or propose_* tools. The meaning is unambiguous and the scope is well-defined.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_changes or propose_* tools. It implies the action but lacks any contextual guidance, such as 'use this to revert proposed changes' or 'do not use this if you want to keep the changes'. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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