openspec_reject_change

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits. With no annotations, the agent has no information about side effects, reversibility, notifications, or post-conditions. The description fails to add value beyond the minimal action.

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 short (one phrase), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It fails to provide necessary context and is not front-loaded with useful information.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It omits critical details about the outcome of rejecting a change, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation but offering no extra context.

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 'Reject a change' clearly states the action and resource, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'openspec_archive_change' or 'openspec_resolve_review'. The purpose is clear but lacks context on what kind of changes are rejected.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or comparison with sibling tools like 'openspec_approve_change'.

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