opencode_question_reject

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the 'pending' scope and 'explicitly' nuance, but does not describe side effects or irreversibility beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'Reject', 'pending', and 'explicitly' all contribute to understanding the action.

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 and has an output schema plus annotations covering destructiveness, but the description still leaves the agent to infer the role of requestId and when rejection is appropriate. Adequate for a minimal call, 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?

The description does not explain that requestId identifies the question to reject, and the schema only gives it a minLength with no semantic description. Directory is described in the schema, but at 50% coverage the description should compensate for requestId and 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 uses a specific verb ('Reject') and a clear resource ('a pending OpenCode question'), which makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_question_reply and opencode_question_list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to reject a question versus replying to it, or what conditions must hold (e.g., the question must still be pending). The word 'pending' hints at the precondition, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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