reject_conclusionReject a pending conclusion to keep it in the audit trail while preventing it from appearing in future recall. Record an optional note and decider for traceability.
Reject one pending conclusion while retaining it in the canonical audit trail and excluding it from recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| decidedBy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical nuance: the conclusion is not deleted but retained in the audit trail and excluded from recall. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation, clarifying the exact side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaning: the action, the target, and the two key side effects (audit trail retention and recall exclusion).
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?
While the core behavior is stated, the description omits parameter semantics and does not mention prerequisites like the id being required or the conclusion being pending. For a destructive tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.
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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (id, note, decidedBy). The agent is left without any meaning for these fields, which is a significant gap for a destructive operation that requires an id.
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 (reject), resource (pending conclusion), and the specific behavior: retaining it in the canonical audit trail and excluding from recall. This distinguishes it from siblings like approve_conclusion, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for pending conclusions that need rejection, but it does not explicitly contrast with approve_conclusion or other alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.