reject_change

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses effects on insertions and deletions. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., tracked changes must be on), reversibility, or potential side effects on the document state.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, followed by two bullet-point behaviors, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description sufficiently covers the behavior for both change types. It does not need to explain return values thanks to the output schema.

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 adds essential meaning to change_id by explaining it as the integer id attribute of w:ins or w:del elements. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing this context.

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?

Clearly states the tool rejects a single tracked change by change_id, explaining behavior for insertions and deletions. The name and description distinguish it from batch operations like reject_all_changes or reject_changes, but does not explicitly contrast with accept_change.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context for rejecting a specific change, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using reject_changes for multiple). The description implies singularity but doesn't instruct user to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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