Reject pending post

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so thoroughly: the post returns to draft with approvalStatus 'rejected', the author is notified and can resubmit, and specific error codes for 400/403/404 are given. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence states the core purpose and subsequent sentences cover permission, post-conditions, errors, and usage context. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to enumerating error codes, but each sentence contributes meaningful information and the key facts are front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: what happens to the post, who is affected, what permissions are needed, and all likely failure modes. No critical call-disambiguation information is missing relative to sibling tools.

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% and both postId and reason are already documented. The description adds context that the reason is shown to the author, but this is also in the schema's reason field. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 post awaiting team approval') and names the state the post must be in. The action is clearly distinguished from sibling approve_post and delete_post by focusing on the 'reject' workflow.

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?

Explicitly provides the trigger 'Use this when the user (an owner/admin/approver) wants to reject a post awaiting team approval' and includes the required role post:approve. It does not name the alternative approve_post or say when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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