appcrane_deny_access_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the action marks request as done without granting access, optionally appends a reason to the original message affecting audit trail, and lists required admin roles. However, it does not mention irreversibility or potential notifications.

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?

Three sentences: first states action and result, second explains optional reason effect, third notes permissions. Concise, front-loaded, no wasted 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?

No output schema, but description explains the behavioral outcome: marks request as done without granting, optionally appends reason. Sufficient for a denial action, though could mention any return values or confirmations.

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 50% (only 'reason' has description). The description adds meaning: 'Optionally appends a reason to the original message so the requester (and the audit trail) sees why.' This clarifies the parameter's effect. The 'request_id' parameter is implied to be the pending request's ID, though not explicitly stated.

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 'Deny' and resource 'pending access request'. It specifies that it marks the enhancement_request as done WITHOUT granting access, distinguishing it from sibling tools like appcrane_approve_access_request and appcrane_set_request_status.

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 says 'Deny a pending access request' and mentions required roles ('App-admin / owner / global admin required'). It implies usage context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like appcrane_approve_access_request.

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