decline_suggested_post

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action. It does not explain side effects, what 'decline' entails, or any required permissions. The version note 'v9.2' is not behavioral.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the version marker '(v9.2)' is somewhat extraneous and adds little value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

With no output schema and only 0% parameter coverage, the description must provide more context. It lacks any details about return values, effects, or usage nuances, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool appropriately.

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%, but the description provides no information about the two required parameters (business_connection_id and message_id). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic explanation, offering no meaning beyond raw types.

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 ('Decline') and the target resource ('a suggested post for a channel'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'approve_suggested_post' through the opposing verb. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys usage (to decline a suggested post) but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. approving, nor any prerequisites or context. It provides no comparison to alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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