reject_tracked_changes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses all-or-nothing atomicity, the stale-document check, the premium-plan precondition that determines whether tracked changes even exist, and that apply=true triggers a user confirmation in the MCP client. It also adds a prompt-injection caution about collaborator-authored content, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its effect, then layered with write-safety, eligibility, and trust caveats in a logical order. It is dense and every sentence carries information, though the block runs long and the injection warning, while justified, adds length that could be tightened.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the return value is a unified diff preview, writes are conditional and atomic, the operation is idempotent, and the premium prerequisite explains potential empty results. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters and even sources change_ids to list_comments with include_changes. The description still adds behavioral meaning to apply (confirmation prompt in the client) and to the failure condition on change_ids, which is more than restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reject tracked changes by id") and immediately defines the semantics: insertions removed, deletions restored. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from accept_tracked_changes without opening either schema.

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?

Clear invocation context: preview by default, write only with apply=true, and a documented precondition (Overleaf premium required) plus a guard condition (nothing written if any id is unknown or a doc changed since preview). It never explicitly names accept_tracked_changes as the alternate path, but the reject/accept split is self-evident from the name.

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