reject_deletion_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — 'API token required' — which is useful auth context, and 'pending' constrains the target state. However, it does not say whether rejection is irreversible, what state the request transitions to, or what error conditions apply.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the API-token requirement is the only additional detail, and it earns its place as a prerequisite an agent needs before invoking.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate — purpose and auth are covered. But it omits the workflow relationship to approve_deletion_request and the post-rejection behavior, which an agent needs to gauge side effects and choose confidently between the two moderation actions.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the lone id parameter as 'ID of the deletion request'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb ('Reject') applied to a well-defined resource ('a pending deletion request'), making the action unmistakable. The verb inherently distinguishes it from the sibling approve_deletion_request, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 qualifier 'pending' implies the tool only applies to requests in pending state, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It never names the natural alternative, approve_deletion_request, or the conditions that would favor rejecting versus approving, leaving the usage context to inference.

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