reject_request

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing that this is a write operation. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens after rejection (e.g., irreversibility, notifications, status change).

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes the prerequisite inline without unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It includes the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is a notable operational constraint. The lack of an output schema is not a gap since none exists, and the scope is limited to rejecting a pending request.

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 fully describes both parameters (sys_id as 'System ID of the approval record' and comments as 'Reason for rejection'), and the description adds no further parameter-specific meaning. As schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Reject') and resource ('pending approval request'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like approve_request. The prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' is additional context that does not obscure the purpose.

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 when rejecting a pending approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_request. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations are provided, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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