ncloud_sourcedeploy_reject_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'reject' implying a mutation, but does not describe side effects, permissions required, whether rejection is reversible, or what happens after rejection (e.g., notification to requester).

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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should at least hint at the result of rejection (e.g., success confirmation or status change). It also fails to differentiate from sibling rejection tools like ncloud_sourcedeploy_reject_canary, which might also be present. The minimalism leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (projectId, stageId, scenarioId), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'reject' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'scenario deployment request', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcedeploy_approve_deploy. However, it could benefit from clarifying what constitutes a deployment request in this context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_sourcedeploy_cancel_deploy or ncloud_sourcedeploy_approve_deploy. Missing information about prerequisites or the typical workflow step where rejection applies.

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