reject_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a state-changing rejection and hints at legacy/deprecated status, but says nothing about permissions, whether the action is deleted or just marked, reversibility, or what happens to the action after rejection.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the legacy-alias caveat is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification.

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 output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is low-complexity with two params. Still, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without the mutation semantics or parameter guidance needed to call it safely.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description does not compensate: action_id is only inferable from 'a pending action', and the optional 'reason' field is not mentioned at all. The agent gets no format, source, or effect guidance for either parameter.

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 verb and resource ('reject a pending action') and flags the tool as a 'Legacy alias', which is useful metadata. However, it never says what the alias is of or how it differs from the sibling reject_approval, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of reject_approval as the preferred alternative, and no prerequisites such as the action needing to be in a pending state. 'Legacy alias' hints at deprecation but does not tell the agent what to do about it.

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