reject_release_to_writers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome (sending content back to writers) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, state transitions, or any other consequences. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action and the linkage between the action and the rewrite_instructions parameter. However, it lacks workflow context, such as when this step occurs in the release lifecycle, and does not mention any prerequisites or return behavior. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: id as 'Release ID' and rewrite_instructions as 'Clear instructions telling writers what to change and why.' The description adds minimal value by linking 'revision instructions' to rewrite_instructions, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action: 'Reject the release content and send it back to writers with revision instructions.' This clearly indicates the verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from approval or cancellation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like sandbox_editor_rejects or revise_release, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revise_release, approve_release, or sandbox_editor_rejects. The description merely states the action without indicating the appropriate workflow context or exclusions.

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