Reject DM draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the state change ('Mark rejected') and adds a non-obvious behavior (reconciling a stuck draft), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the draft after rejection, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds a meaningful use case without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a useful edge case (reconciling a stuck send). It omits deeper behavioral details, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 covers the only parameter 'id' with a description ('DM draft id.'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Mark a DM draft rejected' with a specific verb and resource, and the scope is narrowed to DM drafts, distinguishing it from the sibling 'reject_draft' for regular drafts. It also adds a secondary purpose (reconciling a stuck sending state), further clarifying intent.

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 primary usage is evident from the description, and the second sentence provides a concrete additional scenario ('draft stuck in sending after a failed attempt'), which guides when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the DM-specific naming and the additional use case give adequate context among siblings.

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