agent_queue_reject

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a mutation (rejection) but omits details about repercussions, reversibility, or authorization requirements. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise (1 sentence, 9 words). No wasted words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Structure is minimal but not misleading.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context. Missing prerequisites, side effects, and parameter roles.

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%. The description provides no semantics for the 4 parameters (reason, queue_id, project_id, operator_id), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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-queue item for one project). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_queue_approve, though brief.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., approval_queue_reject). The context of 'pending approval-queue item' is not elaborated, leaving the agent without decision-making cues.

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