reject_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive mutation (rejecting and canceling) and includes a useful failure warning about Change Model governance. However, it does not describe the response format, side effects on the approval record, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main action and one short warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical environmental note without any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and an important failure condition. However, it does not explain what happens to the pending approval record, how rejection_reason is used, or any return value expectations. The failure warning is valuable, but the lack of parameter guidance and side-effect detail leaves some gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail. rejection_reason is required but lacks a description in both schema and tool description, and the description does not clarify how to use approver_id or the acceptable format of change_id. The description provides no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 specific action 'Reject' on 'a change request's pending approval record' and the resulting effect 'cancel the change'. This is distinct from siblings like approve_change and submit_change_for_approval, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or specific conditions for use. The purpose makes the primary use obvious, but no additional guidance is given beyond a failure warning that applies to certain environments, not usage context.

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