reject_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only offers the vague label 'HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP GATE' and the core action. It does not disclose consequences of rejection, permissions required, reversibility, or side effects.

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 very brief, but this brevity is due to under-specification rather than economy. The 'HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP GATE' label adds little concrete information, and the action sentence is minimal. Lacks essential details that should be included.

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 part of a write approval workflow, as evidenced by siblings approve_write and list_pending_writes. The description fails to explain this context, what a 'staged write' is, or the consequences of rejection. With three unexplained parameters and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate for a reliable tool invocation.

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 has zero descriptions for the three required parameters (write_id, approver, reason). The description does not explain any of them, leaving their meaning to inference. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.

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 states 'Reject a staged write' which is a specific action targeting a specific resource type (a staged write). It is clear and likely understood in the context of the sibling tool approve_write, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus approve_write or other alternatives. The sibling tools list_pending_writes and approve_write suggest a workflow, but the description does not explain the decision criteria for rejecting.

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