reject_draft

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it is a 'local status change only, nothing touches X,' clarifying it does not affect external systems. This is consistent with annotations and provides additional insight into the tool's 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description is adequate. It explains the core action and side effects (local, no external impact). However, it could briefly mention that the draft's state changes to rejected.

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 only parameter, 'draft_id', is required but the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain what the parameter represents or how to use it.

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 tool's function: 'Reject a pending draft so it can never be approved.' It uses a specific verb ('reject') and resource ('draft'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'approve_draft'.

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 provides context for usage: 'Local status change only, nothing touches X.' This implies it is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like deleting or canceling drafts.

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