chap.decide.reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does disclose a key state transition: the task is either declined or returns to in_progress if request_revision is set. It does not mention audit logging, irreversibility, or permission requirements, but the core effect on the task lifecycle is clearly stated.

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, with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional nuance following immediately. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core state change but does not mention the audit entry, the approved_artefact_digest binding, or what the caller should expect as a response. The schema fills many gaps, but the description alone would leave a user uncertain about side effects and return behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the request_revision explanation essentially mirrors the schema's description. No points lost, but no extra value gained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Reject the artefact under review', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the two possible outcomes (declined vs. returns to in_progress), which separates it from siblings like chap.decide.approve or chap.decide.override.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the phrase 'Reject the artefact under review' suggests when it should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over approve/override/abstain, nor any when-not-to-use caveat. The conditional behavior of request_revision is explained, but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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