reject_proposal

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 explicitly states that the skill file is not changed and that the proposal is marked rejected with an optional reason. This clearly discloses the behavioral outcome.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main action in the first line. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, straightforward action) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return), the description covers the essential behavior. It tells what happens to the proposal and what parameters are needed. It could mention the return status but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining proposal_id as 'The numeric ID from get_pending_proposals()' and reason as 'Optional note explaining why the proposal was rejected'. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (reject) and the resource (pending skill improvement proposal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_proposal_tool, approve_proposal, and draft_self_improvement_proposal_tool by specifying the rejection action and noting that the skill file is not changed.

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 this tool: when you want to reject a proposal without applying it. It explains what does not happen (skill file unchanged) and provides an optional reason. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if you want to apply or approve).

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