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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the critical behavior that it does not change the document, which is beyond the annotations. It also instructs to use exact IDs to avoid side effects, reinforcing idempotency. There is no contradiction; it complements the readOnlyHint=false by clarifying that despite being a mutation, it doesn't alter the document. This is useful context for safety.

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 sentence that is direct and action-oriented, front-loading the purpose and the key constraint. It includes necessary guidance about ID sources without excessive detail. Loses a point because it could be slightly more explicit about the source of targetId, but overall it is concise and effective.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core behavior, the source of IDs, and the no-change guarantee. The output schema handles return value details, so not needed. However, it doesn't mention the authorization or the relationship to threads, but that is minor given the context of using prior tool outputs. Overall, a solid description for a mutation tool with annotations covering idempotency.

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 71%, meaning some parameters are undocumented in the schema (e.g., suggestionId, targetId lack descriptions). The description explicitly instructs to use exact suggestionId and targetId from prior calls, providing semantics for these critical parameters. It also clarifies that targetId should come from the same source, filling the gap. Other parameters like articleTitle and workspaceName have their own schema descriptions, so the description adds value where needed.

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 action ('Mark an existing review suggestion rejected'), the target resource ('review suggestion'), and the key constraint ('without changing the document'). It distinguishes from sibling accept_suggestion by emphasizing rejection without modification, which is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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?

It specifies to use the exact suggestionId and targetId returned by add_suggestion or list_review_threads, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for accepting) or name alternatives, but given the sibling list shows accept_suggestion, a slight gap remains. However, the instruction to not change the document implies a read-like mutation, and the source of identifiers is well stated.

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