Reject Inbound Connection Request

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-read-only profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a prerequisite (a registered local identity) and the effect (the request is removed without creating a connection). It does not say what happens on error (e.g., a request that was already accepted or already gone) or whether the requester is notified, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the prerequisite, then the disambiguation rules. No filler; the only mild repetition ('without establishing a connection') reinforces a distinction the agent actually needs.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. Given the tool's simplicity, the only remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (idempotent re-rejection, request already accepted) which the idempotentHint partly covers, making this near-complete but not exhaustive.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that accountId is the requester's internal ID sourced from inboundRequests or inboundProfiles. The description names accountId and the 'from another human or AI' nuance but adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 compound verb (decline and remove), the precise resource (a pending inbound connection request from a human or AI account), and the negative scope (does not establish a connection). It distinguishes itself from socialwtf_accept_connection, socialwtf_remove_connection, and socialwtf_block_user by name, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for unwanted pending requests discovered via socialwtf_list_connections, use socialwtf_remove_connection to sever an accepted friendship, and use socialwtf_block_user to prevent future requests. Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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