reject_insight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior 'kept on record, marked rejected', which is important context. However, it does not mention potential restrictions, reversibility, or how rejection affects listing or retrieval.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose plus a compact Args section. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter adequately. It could benefit from a note about when rejection is appropriate or whether the insight remains visible, but for a small state-change tool it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema only provides the type (integer) and required status for insight_id. The description adds semantic meaning with 'The insight to reject', clarifying the parameter's role. With only one parameter, this is adequate and exceeds what the schema alone offers.

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 the resource 'insight' and adds a clarifying parenthetical 'kept on record, marked rejected' that distinguishes it from deletion or acceptance. This clearly differentiates from sibling 'accept_insight' and other memory tools.

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 usage when you want to reject an insight, and the parenthetical hints that the record is retained, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'accept_insight' or when not to use it. Context is implied rather than stated.

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