Reject several drafts

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, but the description adds important behavior: no reason is recorded, one outcome is returned per id, already-handled drafts are skipped, and an Idempotency-Key is required or auto-generated. It also lists required scopes and workspace override behavior, which is useful operational context beyond annotations.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return and skip semantics. The operational metadata and repeated idempotency/workspace guidance add some low-value length, but the description remains reasonably structured and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and the annotations already cover safety traits. The description still supplies the missing context an agent needs: scope requirements, idempotency behavior, workspace override, skip semantics, and the fact that no rejection reason is recorded.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds semantic meaning by implying that the ids are pending review-queue draft ids and that each id maps to one outcome. It also explains retry behavior for idempotencyKey and workspace override behavior, though those points substantially repeat schema descriptions.

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: reject several pending drafts, with the concrete effect that none will send. The word 'several' clearly distinguishes this bulk operation from the single-draft reject sibling, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context for bulk rejection and says drafts already handled or not in the queue are skipped. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as luca_review_queue_reject for single drafts or luca_review_queue_bulk_approve, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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