reject_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose two real traits: a no-op under disabled approval and that self-approval is permitted and recorded. It omits what state actually changes, whether rejection is reversible, what permissions are required, and whether the reason is persisted — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'Self-approval is permitted and recorded' reads as borrowed from an approval tool and is slightly confusing in a rejection context, but it costs little space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves too much open: the resulting state, error conditions for an unknown or unapproved plan, and the role of 'reason' are all unstated.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters, yet it mentions neither 'plan_name' (required, identifying the target) nor 'reason' (what it is used for, whether it is stored or surfaced to reviewers). The agent learns nothing about parameters beyond their names in the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reject a plan'), which is directly distinguishable from the sibling tools approve_plan, pause_plan, and resume_plan. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 'fail-closed' note tells the agent that when plan approval is disabled the call is skipped and nothing happens, which is genuinely useful pre-call context. However, there is no guidance on when to reject versus pause or record a decision, and no stated preconditions such as required plan state.

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