Request artifact changes

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the description's statement about idempotency is redundant but consistent. The phrase 'with useful feedback' adds context about the note parameter's purpose. No contradictions. However, the description does not elaborate on what the feedback implies (e.g., whether it notifies a creator) or the state change beyond rejection. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word carries meaning—no fluff, no repetition. It efficiently conveys core purpose and a key behavioral trait (idempotency). An excellent example of concise documentation.

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 has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations present. The description covers the core action and idempotency but omits details like what constitutes a 'pending' version, how the rejection is processed (e.g., notifications, state changes), and the meaning of return values. While not complex, the description leaves gaps that could confuse an agent about expected outcomes. It is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no direct explanation of parameters. The mention of 'useful feedback' indirectly suggests the note parameter is for feedback. However, the request_id parameter receives no clarification of what it refers to. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and no elaboration in the description, the agent must infer from the tool name alone. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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 'Reject' and the resource 'one pending immutable artifact version'. It also notes the idempotency, which further clarifies the behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like approve_artifact_version and reject_version (which may apply to a different entity). The purpose is specific and 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 mentions 'Repeating the same decision is idempotent', which gives a usage hint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reject_version or approve_artifact_version. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context of use, or when not to use it. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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