Reject a 2ools version

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: restoration of the active parent and retention in immutable history, which goes beyond the annotation signals and clarifies the precise consequences of the 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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds essential behavioral details. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral implications (parent restoration, immutable history) and authority prerequisite. It could mention potential outcomes like error conditions, but it is largely complete for a rejection tool with these annotations.

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 100%, with each parameter (project_id, version_id, confirmation, decision_note) already documented clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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' on the resource 'one saved version', and the effect of restoring the parent if active. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like approve_version by focusing on rejection and its specific behavioral consequence.

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 through 'Use separately delegated review authority', indicating a prerequisite of special permission. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., approve_version, reject_artifact_version) or state when not to use this tool.

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