task_reject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'reject' which implies a state change, but doesn't describe what happens after rejection (e.g., whether the task returns to sender, gets canceled, or becomes available to others). It also doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format.

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, efficient sentence in Indonesian that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (though not provided here), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mutation's consequences, parameter requirements, or relationship to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more behavioral context.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't mention the required task_id parameter or optional reason parameter, leaving both undocumented. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid task_id or appropriate reason content.

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 action ('Tolak' meaning 'Reject') and the resource ('delegation offer yang ditujukan ke agent ini' meaning 'delegation offer addressed to this agent'). It distinguishes from siblings like task_accept and task_defer by specifying rejection, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_accept or task_defer. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between rejection and other delegation responses.

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