reject_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly states that the skill file is unchanged and that the proposal is marked rejected with an optional reason. This covers the key behavioral aspect (non-destructive mutation) but could optionally include more detail on side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear Args block for parameter details. Every sentence is informative, with no fluff. This is a model of 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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral effect. It does not explain the return value, but the presence of an output schema makes that acceptable. It could optionally mention that the proposal is marked as rejected in the system, but overall it is complete enough for correct usage.

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 must compensate. It does so excellently: for 'proposal_id', it specifies the source ('from get_pending_proposals()'), and for 'reason', it explains its optional nature and purpose. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reject') and clearly identifies the resource ('a pending skill improvement proposal'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_proposal' and 'apply_proposal_tool' by explicitly stating the outcome ('without applying it').

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 provides context for when to use the tool (rejecting a proposal) and references where to obtain the proposal ID ('from get_pending_proposals()'). While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tools provide implicit guidance. The usage is clear and direct.

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