Reject a plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Nothing executes' is a valuable, non-obvious side-effect disclosure that clarifies this is a state change only. It stops short of mentioning reversibility or response behavior, but the core safety-relevant behavior is covered.

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 nine words with no filler. It front-loads the state transition and adds the critical 'nothing executes' qualifier in a compact, easy-to-parse sentence.

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 adequate for a one-parameter state-change tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around invalid states (e.g., non-pending plans) and any additional side effects. It gives the essential context but remains thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The single planId parameter is self-explanatory by name, and the description adds the 'pending' precondition and 'rejected' outcome. However, it does not explicitly bind planId to the plan being rejected or describe error conditions for non-pending plans.

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 ('marks'), the resource ('plan'), the precondition ('pending'), and the resulting state ('rejected'). It also distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings by adding 'nothing executes'.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when a pending plan should be rejected rather than executed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as approve or dry_run, nor does it state when not to use it.

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