ingest_reject

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds which subset is affected (pending notes in _inbox). It does not say whether the note is deleted from disk or merely flagged as rejected, nor whether the action is recoverable, which matters for a destructive 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient rather than verbose, though the terseness leaves the under-specification problems noted in other dimensions.

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 destructive, one-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits outcome, irreversibility, and slug provenance. An agent could invoke it but cannot predict what it will do to the note.

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% for the single required parameter 'slug', and the description never explains what the slug identifies or where it comes from (presumably an inbox note identifier). With the schema contributing nothing, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 (破棄する / discard) and a specific resource (_inbox の保留ノート / pending notes in _inbox), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like ingest_promote or ingest_review_queue, which address the same inbox objects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reject versus promote, stage, or send to the review queue, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the workflow position entirely from the word 'reject'.

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