boss_agent_review_reject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait—that rejecting an old-version review item also records a skip event—which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not describe permission requirements, reversibility, or the effect on the underlying review item, so transparency is partial.

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 core sentence is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the availability annotation contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix and the overall text mixes product label, behavior, and availability tags in a somewhat cluttered way.

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 simple two-parameter action with fully described schema parameters, the description gives usable availability context and the core effect. But with no annotations and no output schema, it still leaves the agent to infer broader results or side effects beyond the logged skip event.

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%, so the schema already documents id as 'review item id' and reason as '拒绝原因'. The description adds no additional parameter context, which matches the baseline expectation when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb '拒绝' (reject) with a concrete resource '旧版本复核项' (old-version review item) and adds the side effect '记录跳过事件' (record skip event). It clearly identifies what the tool does, and the '旧版本' qualifier hints at its role relative to approve/review siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the adjacent siblings boss_agent_review_approve or boss_agent_review. The availability tag (roles/platforms) describes who can use it, not which situations call for rejection versus approval, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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