decline_pull_request

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether comments are closed, permissions required, or if the action is reversible). The 'version' parameter implies optimistic locking but is not explained.

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 short but the parameter list repeats schema information. The core statement is concise, but lacks additional context that could be added without being verbose (e.g., explaining locking).

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 has 4 required parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description simply lists parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter semantics, but it provides none. For example, 'project_key' is just named with no 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 clearly states 'Decline a pull request.' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_pull_request, merge_pull_request, etc. No ambiguity.

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 other pull request actions such as reject, request changes, or remove change request. The description does not mention prerequisites or contextual triggers.

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