reject_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, if it triggers notifications, or if it requires special permissions. The agent is left guessing about side effects.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections, which would be acceptable given the brevity. No unnecessary words, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 tool has one parameter with no documentation, no annotations, and a sibling 'cancel_workflow' that likely overlaps in function. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly, especially given the presence of similar tools.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'params' with type 'anyOf' (object or null) and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter is for or how to use it. The agent cannot infer the required structure or meaning from the description.

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 the action ('reject') and the resource ('workflow'), which is clear. However, it does not specify what 'reject' entails (e.g., cancelling, marking as invalid) or how it differs from 'cancel_workflow', which is a sibling. The description is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_workflow'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, conditions, or best practices. The agent has no information to decide when rejection is appropriate.

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