reject_subgoal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the version, allowed statuses, and that it records 'rejected_reason' in a file. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., changes to subgoal status), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and version, and the second provides context and side effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 required string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers allowed statuses and recording behavior. However, it does not mention the resulting status after rejection or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%; each parameter already has a description. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format constraints. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 'Reject a subgoal with a reason', identifying the specific verb and resource. It also lists allowed statuses, which distinguishes it from the sibling accept_subgoal.

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 specifies from which statuses rejection is allowed ('ready/running/done_by_agent/needs_fix'), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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