Decline a blocked pipeline

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the pipeline ends as declined, never runs, and the pipeline entry and metadata are preserved. This clarifies the state transition and reassures about non-destructiveness, complementing the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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, no filler, and the primary action is stated first. The description earns its length with concrete outcome 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 two-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the required state, the effect, and the preservation behavior. It is slightly lean on edge cases such as what happens if the pipeline is not waiting for approval, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented with descriptions referencing repo_id and pipeline number. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it refuses a pipeline that is waiting for approval. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like approve_pipeline, cancel_pipeline, and delete_pipeline by stating the target state and the terminal outcome.

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a pipeline is waiting for approval and should be refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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