decline_pull_request

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool's mutation nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses optimistic locking by fetching the current version automatically. This transparency about the locking mechanism is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is stated first, followed by the key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; ideal length for clarity.

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 destructive mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one behavioral trait (optimistic locking). It lacks information on return values, error states, or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (4 params, all described). The description does not add any additional information about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool's action with a specific verb ('Decline') and resource ('a pull request'). It also adds the unique detail about automatic version fetching for optimistic locking, which distinguishes it from siblings like merge_pull_request or update_pull_request.

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 usage for declining pull requests but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., merge_pull_request, update_pull_request). No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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