ps_hold_reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation 'will not proceed,' which implies a safe, non-destructive action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., audit trail impact), or response behavior. For a tool with potential security implications (rejecting holds), this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a hold rejection tool (likely involving security or workflow decisions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what a 'held execution request' is, how to identify one, or what happens after rejection, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of 'haltAgent' or format for 'reason'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the verb ('reject') and resource ('a held execution request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ps_hold_approve', which would be the natural alternative for handling held requests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ps_hold_approve' or other hold-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for held requests, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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