reject_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action (rejects/cancels) but says nothing about reversibility, whether there are conditions for rejection (only pending), what side effects occur (does it notify someone?), or what the output represents. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 a single short sentence in Portuguese, which is efficient and front-loaded. Every word earns its place. It could add a bit more context, but it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 has no annotations, minimal parameter info in the description, and only one simple parameter. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Given the low complexity, the description is near-adequate, but it lacks guidance on preconditions (must be pending) and success/failure implications, which would improve completeness for a mutation tool.

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?

There is one parameter (plan_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description does not mention plan_id at all, though the tool name and description context ('plan pendente') make it reasonably inferable that plan_id identifies the plan to reject. Baseline is 3 given the single, self-evident parameter name, but the description adds no explicit meaning.

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+resource ('rejects/cancels a pending plan'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like approve_change and propose_change. However, the term 'plano pendente' (pending plan) is ambiguous - it's unclear if this means a pending change, proposal, or another entity type. The purpose is understandable but terminology is vague.

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 name 'reject_change' and description imply it's the counterpart to approve_change, which gives implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reject vs. alternatives, no mention of caveats (e.g., can only reject pending plans, not approved/executed ones), and no stated relationship to propose_change or list_pending_changes for discovering plan_ids.

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