decline_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a minor note that passing version saves a fetch, without explaining side effects such as notification or state transition.

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 short sentences with no wasted language. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional-parameter guidance follows immediately.

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?

With complete schema coverage and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It could do slightly more to describe the consequence of declining a pull request, but no output schema exists and the core call semantics are covered.

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 all five parameters thoroughly, especially the conditional-write behavior of version. The description reinforces that comment is optional and version saves a fetch, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Decline a pull request.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations such as merge_pull_request, update_pull_request, and create_pull_request.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Decline,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus merge_pull_request or update_pull_request. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the optional comment.

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