reject_subgoal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions recording 'rejected_reason' in a file, but omits crucial details like whether the subgoal status changes (e.g., to 'rejected'), if the action is reversible, or any permission requirements.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by constraints/side effects. Every word adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 description covers the basic purpose and a constraint (allowed statuses), but lacks important context such as the resulting subgoal state, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., subgoal existence). Given no output schema, more detail is needed for a mutation tool.

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%, but the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Goal ID.'). The description does not add meaningful context to the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only restates that a reason is used.

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 action (Reject a subgoal) and the resource (subgoal), and specifies it can be done with a reason. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'accept_subgoal' by focusing on rejection.

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 explicit context on when the tool can be used by listing allowed non-terminal statuses (ready/queued/running/done_by_agent/needs_fix), but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'accept_subgoal'.

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