iota_wallet_reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('reject') but doesn't explain what rejection entails (e.g., irreversible cancellation, permission requirements, or effects on the request). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool like 'reject'. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens after rejection), error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'request_id'. The schema already describes it as 'ID of the pending request to reject', so the description provides no additional semantic value, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 target ('pending signing request'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'iota_wallet_approve' which likely handles approval of similar requests, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'iota_wallet_approve' or 'iota_wallet_sign_execute'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending request) or context for rejection, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic action.

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