Decline Pull Request

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms a mutation action. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the PR can be reopened, impact on comments, or required permissions). The description is minimal beyond stating the action.

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: four sentences covering the action, all parameters, and return value. No redundant information, efficiently structured with Args and Returns sections.

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 destructive nature and four parameters, the description covers the basic use case but omits important details like what happens if the PR is already declined, and how 'decline' differs from 'close' or 'reject'. The output schema exists but is not elaborated in the description.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: repo_slug, pull_request_id, workspace (optional, defaults to configured workspace), and message (optional reason). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 states 'Decline a pull request,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_pull_request and unapprove_pull_request, but does not elaborate on what 'decline' means (e.g., closing without merging).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_changes_pull_request or unapprove_pull_request. The description does not mention appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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