Decline pull request

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without detailing consequences (e.g., PR state changes, notifications, irreversibility) or permissions required. The qualifier 'open' implies a precondition but does not explain behavior for non-open PRs.

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, direct sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome, return value, error cases (e.g., if the PR is already closed), or any side effects. The simplicity of the tool lowers the bar slightly, but the lack of critical behavioral context remains a gap.

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 all four parameters already have clear descriptions (e.g., 'Reason for declining', fallback environment variables). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Declines an open pull request' clearly states the specific action (decline) and the resource (pull request), and uses the qualifier 'open' to scope its applicability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve, merge, update, and unapprove.

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. It does not mention that declining is appropriate when rejecting a PR, nor does it exclude cases like merging or approving. The context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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