Request artifact changes

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint true, and the description repeats this with 'Repeating the same decision is idempotent,' adding slight clarification. It also adds the behavioral context of 'pending immutable' state, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose outcomes like notification, reversibility, or what happens after rejection.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, and the idempotency clarification adds value despite being in annotations, because it specifies 'same decision'.

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 tool is simple (two params, no output schema) and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The description clarifies purpose and state, but leaves request_id unexplained and does not describe post-rejection behavior. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'with useful feedback,' which vaguely maps to the note parameter. It does not explain request_id, what it refers to (e.g., an approval request ID), or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap for two required 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 'Reject one pending immutable artifact version with useful feedback,' which combines a specific verb (reject), resource (artifact version), and scope (pending, immutable). This distinguishes it from siblings like reject_version (project versions) and approve_artifact_version, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by specifying 'pending immutable artifact version,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to choose this over reject_version or approve_artifact_version, and no mention of when not to use it.

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