agentbus_reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions rejection and notification but omits critical details such as irreversibility, side effects on event state, or required 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element (reject, pending event, notify, originating agent) serves a clear purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description omits essential context such as the lifecycle of a pending event, prerequisites (e.g., lock ownership), and the consequences of rejection, making it incomplete for an agent navigating a suite of nine sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what can be inferred from names. Parameters like 'auth_token' and 'reviewer_id' are left unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action (reject) and the target resource (pending event), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'agentbus_approve' by implying rejection. It also adds notification behavior, which is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 implies usage for rejecting pending events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agentbus_approve' or 'agentbus_review'. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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