bb_decline_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state change (closes without merging), the precondition (OPEN), and the return value (declined PR). It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral outcome is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, each with a distinct job: define the action/effect and state the return value. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple three-parameter action the behavioral description is adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the agent must infer several details from names and sibling tools. It is sufficient but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, and the description does not define projectKey, repoSlug, or id beyond implying that id identifies an OPEN PR. This gives minimal semantic help but leaves the meaning of the repository-scoping parameters to inference from names.

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 uses a specific verb (Decline) with a clear resource (an OPEN PR) and explicitly distinguishes the outcome from merging by saying 'closes it without merging.' This separates it from sibling tools like bb_merge_pull_request and bb_update_pull_request.

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?

It clearly scopes the operation to OPEN pull requests and contrasts it with merging, giving an agent enough context to know when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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