decline_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Decline (close without merging)' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether approvals are reset, if notifications are sent, or if the action is reversible). The optional workspace/repo parameters and their defaults are also not clarified, which could mislead an agent into thinking they are required.

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 sentence plus a clean arg list, front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a mutation with no annotations and a sparse description. It lacks usage context, behavioral side effects, and parameter semantics, making it less complete than expected for a PR-decline operation among many PR-related siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three params with minimal definitions ('PR ID number', 'Workspace slug', 'Repository slug'), but these add little beyond the parameter names and do not explain optionality, defaults, or how to obtain the slugs. The requiredness (only pr_id is required) is left to 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?

The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Decline') and resource ('pull request'), and adds 'close without merging' to distinguish it from merge_pull_request. This is unambiguous and aligns with the tool name.

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 implies the use case (when you want to reject a PR without merging) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like merge_pull_request or request_changes_on_pr. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it relies on the reader to infer context.

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