reject_pending_replyRejects a drafted reply by ID with an optional reason, preventing it from being sent and stopping the same post from being proposed again.
Rejects one drafted cloud patrol reply by id with an optional note. It is never sent and the same post is not proposed again. Applies when the user does not want a drafted reply to go out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pending id | |
| reason | No | Optional note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds real substance: the draft is "never sent" and "the same post is not proposed again," clarifying the irreversible downstream consequence of the destructive hint. Missing only auth or return-value detail, which the annotations partly cover.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by id, then behavior, then the usage condition. No wasted text.
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 two-parameter single-record mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, this covers action, side effects, and trigger sufficiently. Auth requirements and output (none) are not discussed, a minor gap.
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% (id and reason already documented), so the baseline is 3. The description restates "by id with an optional note" but adds no syntax or format guidance 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?
States a specific verb (Rejects) and resource (one drafted cloud patrol reply), scoped by id with an optional note. An agent can distinguish it from approve_pending_reply by the verb, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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?
"Applies when the user does not want a drafted reply to go out" gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with approve_pending_reply or noting prerequisites, but the when-to-use context is solid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.