reject_changes

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the effect (removing insertions, restoring deletions) but fails to specify scope (e.g., whether it applies to all changes or selected ones), requirements for parameters, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 short sentence, concise and to the point. It could be structured better to include parameter or usage hints, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 sibling tools and optional parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the relationship to 'reject_change' or 'reject_all_changes', nor does it explain return values from the output schema. Parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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 does not explain the 'author' or 'document_handle' parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent confused about parameter usage.

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 states the tool rejects tracked changes, specifically removing insertions and restoring deleted text. It is clear about the action but does not differentiate from siblings like 'reject_change' or 'reject_all_changes', which may have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reject_change' or 'reject_all_changes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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