reject_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the side-effect scope ("No side effects besides updating the record") and the access level (write). It falls short of stating reversibility, idempotency, or behavior when the proposal is already resolved.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines that lead with the action and follow with the two facts an agent most needs. The "Returns" line is mildly redundant given a full output schema exists, costing a little conciseness.

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 mutation with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing context: side-effect scope and access level. Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists, though error/permission behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (proposal_id and optional reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reject a pending proposal"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling approve_proposal and the broader proposal set. It's clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with approve_proposal or edit_proposal.

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 word "pending" implies a precondition (only pending proposals can be rejected), which gives implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use edit_proposal to change then reject), leaving guidance at the implied level.

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