chap.abstain.declare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one concrete behavioral consequence: the task moves to abstained. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether the reason/category are persisted in an audit trail, or what happens if the abstaining reviewer was the sole reviewer.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action and its outcome placed directly and efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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 description is minimally workable: it names the action and the immediate state change. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks enough surrounding context about the review lifecycle, reversibility, and alternative behaviors to be fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds little beyond the schema, and its phrase 'giving a reason and a category' slightly overstates category as required when the schema marks it optional.

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 ('stand aside from a review'), what is supplied (reason and category), and the resulting state ('the task moves to abstained'). It does not name or contrast with siblings such as chap.decide.reject or chap.escalate.raise, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when abstention is appropriate versus rejecting, escalating, or handing off a review, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The use case is only implied by the action itself.

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