ghl_social_discard_edit_session

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it deletes all staged changes without affecting the live queue. Annotation readOnlyHint=false is consistent, and destructiveHint=false is somewhat clarified by the 'without affecting the live queue' safety note. OAuth scopes are also included.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus endpoint and OAuth details. It is front-loaded with the main action 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?

The description covers the core action but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., needing an active edit session), return value or success/error indicators, and potential side effects. For a 2-parameter tool with nested objects, more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is only 50%, with queueId undocumented. The tool description does not explain any parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. While the schema partially describes body properties, the description adds no further clarification for the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discard edit session changes' and 'Cancels the edit session and deletes all staged changes without affecting the live queue.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_edit_session by emphasizing it does not affect the live queue.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like saving the edit session. It lacks explicit context for the user to choose between discard and other related actions.

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