knowledge_draft_reject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: rejected drafts are remembered and affect deduplication. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or other side effects typical of a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted text. The first sentence states the action, the second adds the important side effect. Very concise and front-loaded.

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 mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action and the side effect. Minor lack: does not specify what the tool returns on success or error. Still sufficient for standard use.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (notes has a description). The description adds 'optional reviewer notes' which aligns with the schema but does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond its inferred meaning as a draft identifier. No additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'reject' and resource 'draft' are clearly stated, and the description distinguishes from siblings like knowledge_draft_accept by adding that rejected drafts are remembered and affect dedup. This provides a specific and actionable purpose.

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 a draft and prevent future proposals of the same title, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. accept, create, or list. No alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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