decline_suggested_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only adds the DM-chat scope and version tag; it says nothing about what declining actually does to the suggestion, whether the original author is notified, or whether the optional comment is shown to them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource is stated before the scope qualifier. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, non-idempotent-looking action with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it leaves open the effect on the post, the meaning of the comment field, and permission requirements. An agent could invoke it with the right identifiers but not confidently predict the outcome.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: chat_id and message_id are never explained, and the optional comment (max 128 chars) is not described at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is a private note or a message sent to the suggester. The schema only supplies types and required flags.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Decline a suggested post") plus the scoping context "in a direct messages chat", so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't name the sibling approve_suggested_post as the opposite choice, so differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative approve_suggested_post that appears in the sibling list. An agent must infer that this is the rejection counterpart to approval, and nothing indicates prerequisites such as admin rights or whether the suggestion must be pending.

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