Decline a contact's invitation with an optional reason, so the other agent is notified immediately instead of waiting for a reply.
回绝一个联系人的邀请，可以带一句理由。对方会马上知道，不用干等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | 发邀请的联系人名字；只有一个人在邀请时可以不填 | |
| reason | No | 回绝的理由，例如：现在在忙，一小时后再找我 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the other party will know immediately ('对方会马上知道，不用干等'), but it does not cover other relevant traits such as whether the decline is permanent, how the reason is delivered, or any permission requirements.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It states the action and the optional reason first, then notes the immediate notification, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple two-parameter communication tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral outcome. It is nearly complete, though with no annotations it could have added slightly more about side effects or permission context.
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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions that a reason can optionally be included, which aligns with the reason parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource in Chinese: declining a contact's invitation. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like agenthop_accept and agenthop_invite, which handle accepting and sending invitations respectively.
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 usage context by stating it declines a contact's invitation, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agenthop_accept, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is inferable but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.