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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: declining a suggestion is not the same as dismissing the observation, the underlying finding remains, and Ollie may offer another path. It does not fully explain what happens to the declined action or whether the decline is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the key conceptual distinction. There is no wasted text.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description explains the key non-obvious consequence: the observation remains. However, it omits what exactly happens to the declined action, whether the decline can be undone, and when to use the sibling approve tool.

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 50%. The description reinforces the reason parameter as the person's own words, matching the schema's existing description. It does not add any meaning for intervention_id beyond identifying it as the suggested action.

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 a specific verb and resource: declining a suggested coaching action. It also distinguishes the action from dismissing the underlying observation. It does not mention the sibling approve_coaching_action, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'decline' and the requirement for a reason, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over approve_coaching_action or set_coaching_disposition. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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