reject_comment_reply

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the actual outcome (the pending draft is dropped), the negative guarantee ('Nothing is posted'), and the failure mode with status code (409 not_pending) — exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of saying whether the rejection is reversible or what the response contains; there is also mild tension with destructiveHint=false, since a draft is discarded, though that is defensible for an unpublished proposal.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the precondition, then the body requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the definition covers action, side effect, precondition, error code, and call shape. The remaining gap is the response payload and any permission/auth requirement, which the agent must discover at runtime.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by clarifying that the request body must be an empty JSON object — resolving how `id` is supplied (path, not body) given `additionalProperties: false`. It still never says what the `id` identifies (reply id vs. comment id).

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Reject a reply'), and the follow-ups clarify the resulting state ('Drops the pending draft. Nothing is posted.'). It does not explicitly name the counterpart approve_comment_reply or bulk_reject_comment_replies, so a reader must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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 states an applicability precondition ('Only a pending comment can be rejected (409 not_pending)'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never routes the agent between reject vs. approve, or single reject vs. bulk_reject_comment_replies, leaving the main selection decision implied by tool names only.

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