reject_voice_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a mutation action (reject) but does not describe consequences like state changes or side effects. The basic purpose is clear, but behavioral details are lacking.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, given the lack of parameter descriptions, it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple rejection action, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without parameter explanations or output schema details (though output schema exists), the completeness is adequate but minimal.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameters. Though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (execution_id, approval_task_id), the description fails to add meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema.

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) and resource (pending in-call voice action). It effectively distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like approve_voice_action and modify_voice_action.

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 the tool is for rejecting pending voice actions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., approve_voice_action) provide natural context for selection.

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