reject_task

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context beyond that: the resulting state (REJECTED) and the required authorization ("Requires approve permission"). It does not explain whether the note is persisted or what happens to a task already rejected.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action and state transition front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the action, state transition and permission requirement are covered. The complete absence of parameter documentation is the remaining gap, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about task_id (the required identifier) or note. An agent gets no guidance on what task_id accepts or what note is for.

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?

States a specific verb (reject) and the resulting state transition (-> REJECTED), which lets an agent distinguish it from approve_task and review_task. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"At the approval gate" implies the trigger condition for use, which is useful context. However, it never states when not to use it or points to the alternative (approve_task) for the opposite decision, so usage is only implied.

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