art.asset.reject

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action; it does not reveal side effects, whether the rejection updates an approval record, whether it can be reversed, or what response/callback occurs.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It is appropriately brief, though its brevity leaves context to be supplied elsewhere.

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 mutating workflow action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to let an agent confidently understand consequences or expected results. The 100% schema coverage helps for parameters, but not for workflow semantics, rejection handling, or 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 input schema already documents all four parameters and nested fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but that is acceptable at baseline because the schema already carries the burden.

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 resource ('candidate asset'), clearly identifying the action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like art.asset.approve or request_changes, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.asset.approve, art.asset.request_changes, or production.approve. The description provides no contextual conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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