reject_decision

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

Without annotations, the description provides good behavioral insight by listing possible return values like 'already-rejected' (idempotency), 'conflict' (concurrency issues), and 'vanished-mid-update' (race conditions). However, it does not disclose authorization needs or side effects.

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 sentence followed by a compact list of return values. Every part is informative, and the most important information (purpose and outcomes) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and limited complexity, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and return statuses. It could elaborate on the meaning of each status, but overall it provides a complete picture for a simple state-transition tool.

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 basic descriptions. The description adds context about the reason parameter being required and the return format being status strings, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: transitioning a proposed decision to rejected with a reason. It specifies the verb 'Transition' and the resource 'proposed decision', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'accept_decision' and 'supersede_decision' by focusing on rejection.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists possible return statuses (e.g., 'illegal-transition') which imply conditions, but lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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