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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no chat message is sent, but it does not describe other side effects, such as whether the requester is notified, whether the request is removed, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No wasted 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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, and only partial parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent does not know what the tool returns, what the 'token' parameter is for, or what side effects occur beyond not sending a chat message.

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 input schema describes only the 'handle' parameter; 'token' lacks any description. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, leaving the agent uncertain about the role of 'token'. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action ('Reject') and resource ('connect request'), clearly distinguishing it from accept_connect and other messaging tools. The added constraint 'Does not send a chat message' further clarifies its scope.

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 for rejecting a connect request but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs accept_connect or other connect-related tools. The note about not sending a chat message offers a hint about its scope but does not direct the agent to alternatives.

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