Reject (id = action id)

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey — that nothing is sent unless confirm: true and that there is no server-side dry run, so the preview is the only safety net. It stops short of stating whether a rejection is reversible or who gets notified.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the verb and the critical security constraint. The telegraphic "WRITE:" prefix and repeated endpoint syntax are slightly cryptic but cost almost nothing in length.

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 an irreversible mutation with no output schema and no destructive hint, the description covers the execution gate but omits consequences (irreversibility, notifications, effect on the approval workflow) and leaves body.reason unexplained. An agent could invoke it correctly, but not predict what happens after.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description contributes meaning for two parameters: it clarifies that id is an action id (not an approval id) and explains the confirm gate. It says nothing about the nested body.reason field or idempotencyKey, leaving half the surface documented only by the schema.

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?

"Reject" supplies a verb and the endpoint path plus a parenthetical that the id is an "action id", so the agent knows this targets an approval action. However, it never states that it rejects a pending approval request, nor what rejecting entails, so the purpose is only inferable from the tool name and the sibling set.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over approvals_approve or approvalLinks_decide, and no statement of preconditions (e.g., must the approval be pending, must the caller be a designated approver). The only conditional mentioned is the confirm gate, which is an execution safeguard rather than a use-case rule.

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