reject_change

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavioral effect: for insertions it discards text, for deletions it keeps text. This provides key insight into the tool's action, though it does not mention reversibility or required document state (e.g., track changes on).

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear opening line, bullet points for insertion/deletion effects, and a separate args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meaning. Since an output schema exists (but not shown), the description need not detail return values. The tool is simple, and the description provides sufficient context for correct 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 sole parameter change_id is described as 'the integer id attribute of the w:ins or w:del element,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema type. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 it rejects a single tracked change by change_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reject_all_changes and reject_changes (plural). It also explains the effect for insertions and deletions, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 use for individual changes by specifying 'single', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_change or reject_changes. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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