reject_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'Reject an article' without explaining side effects (e.g., reversibility, state changes, permissions). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 very short and to the point. It front-loads the purpose immediately. However, the 'Args' section is slightly unconventional for a natural language description. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and sibling tool contrasts, the description is too brief. It does not explain what rejection means (e.g., hides the article, changes status, triggers notifications) or how it relates to other tools like restore_article. An agent would benefit from more detail.

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?

The description includes 'article_id: ID of the article to reject', which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has title and type). However, the explanation is minimal and does not provide examples or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but remains basic.

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 states 'Reject an article' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like approve_article and delete_article, but does not elaborate on what 'reject' entails compared to similar actions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_article, lock_article). The description does not mention context or prerequisites.

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