reject_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool stops the agent workflow and prevents the proposed action, but does not mention permanence, reversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects on related tasks. This is insufficient 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?

The description is two sentences plus an Args list. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 relatively simple; the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It lacks information about output (though an output schema exists) and does not clarify if the task must be in 'pending' state. However, for a straightforward rejection tool, it is mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description provides the only semantics. It explains 'task_id' as 'The approval task UUID' and 'comments' as 'Reason for rejection', adding meaning that the schema lacks. However, it does not specify format constraints or default behavior beyond what schema offers.

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 the verb 'Reject', the resource 'pending HITL task', and the effect 'stopping the agent workflow'. It distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling 'approve_task' by being the opposite action. The context of human-in-the-loop (HITL) is explicit.

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 implies when to use: when a pending HITL task needs to be rejected, stopping the workflow. It doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or distinction from other reject tools like 'reject_voice_action' or 'stripe_reject'), but the context is clear enough for the intended use case.

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