Reject draft post

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key state change (rejected drafts cannot be published) and includes a caution for the reconciliation use case (must manually verify). It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but for this simple action the critical behaviors are covered.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and effect, and the second sentence adds a valuable edge-case caveat. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is fairly complete: it covers the core action, the consequence, and a specific problematic scenario. It could optionally mention whether rejection is reversible, but that is not essential for this simple tool.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Draft id.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 the action ('Mark a draft as rejected') and the consequence ('Rejected drafts cannot be published'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_draft and publish_draft. The secondary reconciliation use case adds further specificity without ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for typical use (rejecting a draft) and an explicit edge case (reconciling a draft stuck in 'publishing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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