Reject an approval

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., status change, notifications). It provides modest additional 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 description is very short (two sentences), with no unnecessary information. However, the first sentence repeats the title, and the structure could be improved by front-loading the most critical details (e.g., what is needed to reject).

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?

With destructiveHint=true and no explanation of prerequisites, the description leaves ambiguity about when rejection is valid (e.g., only pending approvals). Output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is insufficient for safe, informed use.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention that 'id' is the approval ID or that 'decisionNote' is an optional reason. The description provides no parameter-level details, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 'Reject an approval' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. The tool name also contains 'reject'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like approve or request revision, though the action is distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (approve, request revision, resubmit). The only contextual hint is the authorization class 'board_or_agent', which implies who can use it. No description of prerequisites or conditions.

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