aiworkhub_task_reject_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: 'write-gated', the 8000-byte post-strip cap with the exact refusal token, fail-closed behavior on empty predecessor_request_id, the restriction on failure_category, and the guarantee that reason/argv are never echoed. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and disposition choice, then parameter constraints, then the receipt. Dense but every block earns its place; the receipt enumeration is slightly verbose given an output schema exists.

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, yet the description helpfully pre-summarizes the receipt fields, and covers the risky parameters thoroughly. The two undocumented array parameters (residual_identities, validation_amendment) keep it from full completeness on an 8-parameter tool.

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 adds real meaning for to, predecessor_request_id, failure_category, reason, and include_card. However residual_identities and validation_amendment are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving a gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('reject a reviewed task') plus the core inputs (exact feedback, explicit disposition), which cleanly separates it from the accept-side siblings in the tool list. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Explicitly names the disposition alternatives (pending/rework default, blocked, archived, superseded) and gives the rationale for choosing superseded over silent requeue. It also constrains failure_category to to=blocked and a closed taxonomy. It stops short of naming sibling tools like accept_review or review_finding_dispose as the alternative path, so not a full 5.

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