wafle_agents_runs_reject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the state transition to 'cancelled' and the side effect that the pending tool call is not executed, which is key context. It does not discuss reversibility, permissions, or error states, but the main outcome is clearly conveyed.

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 short sentences that front-load the purpose and consequence, with no filler or repetition of schema field names. Every word adds value.

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 action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and outcome well. It does not cover return behavior or edge cases, but the essential context is present.

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 only 33% (only 'slug' is described). The description does not explain 'run_id' or 'note' beyond saying 'a run', so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The meaning of 'run_id' is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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', identifies the resource as 'a run that is awaiting_approval', and states the outcome: 'Run goes to cancelled; the pending tool call is NOT executed.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_runs_approve.

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 gives a clear precondition ('a run that is awaiting_approval') and consequence ('goes to cancelled; the pending tool call is NOT executed'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between approve/reject.

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