reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that editor role is required, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the rejection is permanent, notifications triggered, or changes to motion state. This is a partial disclosure but lacks key behavioral details.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the purpose and the second providing permission and prerequisite context. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds meaningful information without waste.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers purpose, permission, and prerequisite, but omits return value/response behavior and any side effects. It is reasonably complete for invoking the tool but lacks full context that would help an agent anticipate 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?

The input schema already has detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by advising to use get_motion first to identify step_index, which is practical guidance, but it does not provide new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Reject a plan step on a motion, with an optional reason.' This uses a specific verb (reject) and resource (plan step on a motion), distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve and comment. It also implies the scope of the action (a single plan step).

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 provides clear usage context: 'Requires editor role on the motion' and 'Use get_motion first to see the plan and identify the step_index (0-based).' It tells the agent when the tool can be used and a necessary prerequisite, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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.