Reject pending podcast edits by ID to discard them without applying changes to the project.
Reject pending edits by id, discarding them without applying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Ids",
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / ids_jsonRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Ids Json",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "ids_json"
-]New value: +[
+ "ids"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core behavior — edits are discarded and NOT applied, distinguishing rejection from revert_applied_edit. However, it omits reversibility (is a rejected edit recoverable?), permission requirements, and whether rejection is atomic across the id list. Solid core disclosure but gaps on a destructive mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, target, and outcome are all in the first clause. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain project_path and whether rejection is reversible. It covers purpose and effect but not the operational context an agent needs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'by id' (mapping to the required ids array) but says nothing about project_path — its meaning, default, or when it is needed. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Reject pending edits by id' specifies the action and target precisely, and 'discarding them without applying' clarifies the outcome. It implicitly contrasts with the approve_edits_tool sibling, though it never names an alternative. Specific and unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the counterpart to approve_edits, invoked on pending edits that should not be applied. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., edits must be in pending state), or named alternative to route between reject/approve. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.