reject_plan

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write, which tells the agent the plan is not truly deleted. The description's word 'discard' leaves that ambiguity unresolved and says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the plan afterward. With no annotation contradiction, but little added context, 2 is appropriate.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 output schema and only sparse annotations, the description should explain consequences (plan discarded/rejected, effect on related plans, reversibility). It omits all of this, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the name alone.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. It never explains that plan_id identifies the plan to reject (it is required) or what the optional 'reason' field is for. Only the self-evident parameter names keep this above 1.

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?

States a specific verb (discard) and resource (a plan), and adds the condition 'the user does not want', so an agent knows this is a rejection action. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings apply_plan/list_plans or explain how 'discard' differs from the propose_* proposal flow.

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 'the user does not want' essentially restates the tool name rather than providing actionable guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer reject_plan over apply_plan, no prerequisites (e.g., must a plan exist first), and no note that plan_id is required.

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