Reject a code-change proposal by specifying the workspace and proposal IDs. Optionally include a reason for declining.
Reject a code-change proposal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| proposal_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Reject', leaving out side effects, irreversibility, authorization needs, or state changes. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or idempotency. Insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.
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 has 3 parameters with no descriptions; 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Reject' and resource 'code-change proposal', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'code_workspace_proposal_apply'.
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, or prerequisites. Siblings like 'code_workspace_proposal_apply' exist but no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.