cantrip_review_reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the action is a 'soft-delete' (not permanent deletion) and entities are 'kept for history'. It also hints at environmental constraints ('cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts'), though it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and key behavior, and the second explains the optional parameter's use case. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the soft-delete behavior and parameter context, but doesn't explain what happens after rejection (e.g., state changes, notifications) or potential side effects. Given the complexity, it's minimally viable.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some context for the 'project' parameter (overrides .cantrip.json, useful in specific environments), but doesn't provide additional meaning for 'id' or beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('inferred entity'), and explains it's a 'soft-delete, kept for history'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'cantrip_review_accept' or 'cantrip_review_dismiss', but the 'reject' verb is specific enough to imply distinction.

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 provides clear context on when to use the 'project' parameter ('to override .cantrip.json — useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts'), but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cantrip_review_accept' or 'cantrip_review_dismiss'. The guidance is helpful but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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