task_reject

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the optional reason is recorded with the transition, adding some context. However, it does not disclose whether the rejection is irreversible, what happens to the offer, or any side effects on the delegating agent. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no waste or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and an alternative. It could be improved by stating the effect of rejection (e.g., finality) or any permission requirements, but it is largely complete for a basic transition action.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'reason' is optional and is recorded with the transition, giving it semantic meaning. However, 'task_id' is not elaborated beyond its self-evident name, and the description does not fully clarify the relationship between the two parameters. This is a partial compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Reject') and resource ('pending delegation offer'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like task_accept and task_defer. The phrase 'addressed to the active agent' adds precision about the recipient.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when this agent will not perform the task' and explicitly names an alternative: 'Use task_defer instead when the task may be accepted later.' This clearly differentiates when to use this tool vs. a sibling.

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