Reject tracked changes by id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is irreversible, explains the distinct handling of inserts and deletes, and even mentions the underlying OT implementation (u:true flags) and Overleaf parity. This is strong transparency, though it omits error scenarios or invalid id behavior.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: action/effect, implementation detail, and source of ids with an irreversibility warning. No word waste.

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 is a simple mutation with one parameter, and the description covers the core behavior, data source, and irreversibility. The absence of error-handling details or return format is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature, but it could be slightly more complete with invalid-id behavior.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, providing a description for change_ids. The tool description adds value by explicitly telling the agent to source change_ids from list_tracked_changes, and clarifies the param refers to tracked-change suggestions. It also implicitly corrects the schema's 'to accept' wording by using 'rejects'.

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 'Rejects the specified tracked-change suggestions', using a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the action. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling accept_changes by detailing the exact outcome for inserts vs deletes. This is unambiguous and contextually differentiated.

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 instruction to 'Pass the `change_id` values from `list_tracked_changes`' provides clear guidance on where to obtain the required input. While it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid using it, the inverse nature versus accept_changes is inherent in the description, and the irreversibility warning implies caution.

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