clearances_deny

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the exact backend call (POST /v1/clearances/{id}/decide with approved=false) and that the note becomes the decision note, which adds real value. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and behavior for non-pending clearances — notable gaps for 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 tight sentences, zero filler, action and endpoint 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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks return information and side-effect/permission details, though the endpoint disclosure partially compensates.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only restates that the note is stored as the decision note, adding little beyond the schema text; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deny a pending clearance') and even names the underlying endpoint and payload flag, so an agent can instantly distinguish it from clearances_approve or clearances_revoke.

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 word 'pending' implies a state precondition, but the description never says when to prefer deny over revoke or approve, nor what happens if the clearance isn't pending. Usage is only implied.

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