pilot_reject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the peer is notified with the reason, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what state changes occur to the pending request, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps for a mutating action.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and effect; the second gives the usage context. No redundant wording or fluff.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, trigger, and peer notification. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention the fate of the pending handshake (e.g., whether it is removed).

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 both 'target' and 'reason' are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing the reason, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('pending inbound handshake'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pilot_approve or pilot_handshake. The scope is 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when an unknown agent has requested trust and the user does not want to grant it.' It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context makes the distinction clear from siblings like pilot_untrust or pilot_approve.

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