reject_post

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

The description adds the 'optional note' and 'same actor rules' beyond annotations, which already indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. It does not detail side effects, permissions, or response behavior, but is consistent with 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?

The description is two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and a key rule. No redundancy or fluff; front-loaded with the main action.

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 core action and a key behavioral rule, but lacks details on prerequisites, return values, or error scenarios. For a write operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is only 20% (only clientId described). The description mentions 'optional note' which matches the note parameter, but does not explain the other required parameters (campaign, postId, actor). It adds minimal value 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 clearly states the action (reject a post), the approval status set (rejected), and the optional note. It distinguishes itself from the sibling approve_post by referencing 'Same actor rules as approve_post', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 posts with an optional fix note, and references approve_post for actor rules, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other tools or when not to use it.

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