Reject a 2ools version

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about restoring the saved parent if the version was active, and notes the rejected version remains in immutable history. However, it doesn't detail what triggers the idempotent behavior (e.g., re-calling yields same result) or the full extent of destructiveness (e.g., whether linked artifacts are affected).

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 purpose. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing 'Use separately delegated review authority to' if the tool name and title already imply authority context.

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 4 required params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, side effects, and constraints. The only gap is the lack of behavioral detail about idempotency and destroy operation scope beyond the annotation hints.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no hint about the confirmation constant or the content of decision_note). It lists the required fields implicitly but lacks extra guidance.

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 saved version' using specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from alternatives like approve_version and reject_artifact_version by mentioning 'delegated review authority' and describing the effect on the active parent.

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 when to use — when you have delegated review authority and want to reject a specific saved version. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use, the sibling tools like approve_version and reject_artifact_version are clearly different. No explicit exclusions are provided.

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