reject_decision

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

The description confirms the idempotent hint and mutation behavior. It adds context about the row being hidden from default results but kept for audit, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on rate limits or exact permissions.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and effect in the first sentence, then covering idempotency and return format in the second. No wasted words.

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 description covers the action, state change, audit behavior, mutation, idempotency, and return format. For a simple tool with one parameter and good annotations, this is fully 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?

The single parameter 'id' has a schema description 'Decision ID to reject' and the description does not add additional meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the verb 'reject' and the resource 'decision', specifying the context 'review_status=pending' and the effect 'sets review_status=rejected'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'approve_decision' by mentioning the opposite action.

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 explicitly says 'Use approve_decision for the opposite', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling. It also implies usage when a pending decision needs to be rejected.

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