reject

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral fact—a rejected memory is never to govern—which is more than a simple operation. However, it does not reveal what happens to the pending record itself (deleted, suppressed, reversed) or other side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

A single concise sentence delivers both the core action and its inted effect with no redundant wording. The content is front-loaded and focused.

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 simple one-parameter action, the high-level outcome is communicated, and an agent can guess the input id relates to the pending memory. But missing details such as the final status of the memory, possible id constraint, reversibility, and output make the definition only minimally 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 schema defines only a required 'id' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'id' at all, so an agent cannot infer what identifier is expected or whether it refers to a pending memory reference.

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 uses a specific verb, 'reject', on a specific resource, 'a pending memory', and explains the intended consequence ('never governs'). This makes the operation identifiable and distinguishable from the sibling tools such as approve and list_pending, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from forget.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving an agent to infer that it is for pending memories the user wants to reject, but it never mentions approve, forget, or any decision criteria.

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