bond_decline

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is discarded and the sender is not notified, which is useful. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or other behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The action is stated first, followed by consequences, making it easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main action and outcome, though it omits potential reversibility or confirmation steps.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Transfer ID from the consent prompt'.

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 action ('Decline a pending file transfer') and its immediate effect ('File will be discarded and sender will not be notified'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bond_accept, bond_end, etc.

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?

Usage is implied for rejecting a pending transfer, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are provided.

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