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 behavioral burden. It does disclose one side effect beyond the name (a skip event is recorded), but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the item must be pending, required permissions, or what happens on failure for what is clearly a state-changing 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?

The core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the appended availability block is cluttered and even duplicates the label ('可用性: 可用性:'), wasting space without adding operational meaning. Structure is acceptable but not clean.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it does not say what state the review item moves to, whether the action is reversible, or what the caller gets back. The availability metadata does not compensate for these operational gaps.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'id' (review item id) and 'reason'. The description adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific verb ('拒绝'/reject) and resource ('旧版本复核项'/legacy review items), plus a side effect ('记录跳过事件'/record skip event), so the purpose is clear. It does not name its obvious counterpart boss_agent_review_approve, and the 'legacy version' qualifier is unexplained, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase '旧版本复核项' and '兼容接口' imply this is for legacy/compatibility review items rather than current ones, which is a weak usage signal. It never states an explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or that boss_agent_review_approve is the alternative.

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