Reject a pending optimization and optionally record the reason to block unwanted content changes from being applied.
POST /api/v1/optimizations/{id}/rejection — reject a pending optimization with an optional reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Optimization UUID | |
| reason | No | Optional reason for rejection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pending-state restriction and optional reason, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as response effects or consequences beyond the annotation baseline.
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 a single efficient sentence that leads with the endpoint and immediately states the operation. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, and the absence of an output schema does not create a meaningful gap.
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%, with both id and reason already described. The description only restates that the reason is optional, adding no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'reject a pending optimization.' It also includes the exact endpoint. The verb 'reject' clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like approve, apply, and revert.
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 description provides clear context by specifying the action applies to a 'pending optimization' and that a reason is optional. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.