quipu_reject_proposal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only pending proposals are eligible and that a reason is mandatory, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether a rejection can be reversed, or who is permitted to reject.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it could have spent one more clause on the alternative action without becoming bloated.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the pending-state constraint, while annotations carry the destructive profile. It leaves the post-rejection outcome and permission requirements unstated, which an agent making a destructive decision would benefit from knowing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including id, note, decided_by and timestamp is already documented in the schema. The phrase "with a reason" reinforces the mandatory note but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (reject) and resource (a pending schema proposal), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like quipu_accept_proposal and quipu_propose_schema_change. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the action itself is 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 word "pending" implies a precondition (the proposal must not already be decided), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reject versus when to use quipu_accept_proposal, and no mention of preconditions like authorization or proposal state checks.

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