petpals.reject_completion

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behaviors (rejecting the completion and adding a comment), but does not mention side effects like status changes, required permissions, or reversibility. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence that directly states the action and purpose without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple 3-param mutation tool, the description covers the main purpose, but it lacks workflow context such as prerequisites (e.g., when a completion can be rejected) and expected outcomes. No output schema exists, so return behavior remains unspecified.

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 67% (projectSlug and ticketId already have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'reasons' by linking it to the comment, but does not explain format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' with a clear resource 'ticket completion' and an outcome 'add a comment with reasons'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling actions like mark_verified or request_agent_completion_report.

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?

The purpose implies when to use the tool (when rejecting a ticket completion), but it does not explicitly state alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Clear use case but no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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