reject_change

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

No annotations provided. The description explains the effects on insertions and deletions in detail, disclosing the underlying operations on w:ins and w:del elements. It is fairly transparent but does not mention potential side effects like required document state or error handling.

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, using a brief introductory line followed by a bullet list of behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides essential information 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?

The description covers the tool's behavior for both insertion and deletion scenarios. It is complete for a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown). It could mention return values or error cases, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It clearly defines change_id as 'The integer id attribute of the w:ins or w:del element', which is precise and adds meaning 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 'Reject a single tracked change by its change_id' and details behavior for insertions and deletions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_change or reject_all_changes by focusing on a single change.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reject_all_changes, reject_changes, or accept_change. It lacks comparative context.

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