reject_change

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that for insertions text is removed, for deletions text is restored, and if output_path is omitted, a timestamped backup is created and original overwritten. It does not mention required permissions or error handling.

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 well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, using bullet points. It is slightly verbose but efficient for the level of detail provided.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal) and sibling tools, the description covers behavioral nuances (insertion vs deletion), output structure, and backup behavior. It is thorough for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0%, but the description explains all three parameters (path, change_id, output_path) with details on output_path's default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 rejects a tracked change and distinguishes between insertions (remove text) and deletions (restore text). It differentiates from the sibling 'accept_change' by specifying undo behavior.

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 explains what the tool does and its effects, but does not explicitly state when to use reject over accept or provide prerequisites. The contrast with accept_change is implicit.

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