reject_request

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a behavioral condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not disclose other traits like what happens upon rejection (e.g., state change, notifications). It does not contradict annotations.

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 that conveys the purpose and a precondition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the action, target, and a key prerequisite. Could mention the return state or side effects, but not required given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with both parameters (sys_id, comments) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the action ('Reject') and the resource ('pending approval request'). It also includes a prerequisite condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which adds specificity. The verb 'reject' distinguishes this from the sibling 'approve_request'.

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 mentions a requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_request' or 'cancel_request'. It implies the tool is for pending requests but doesn't specify exclusions.

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