reject_knowledge_snippet

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

No annotations are provided. The description only adds a [mutation] tag, indicating it's a write operation, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the snippet after rejection.

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 very short (one sentence with a prefix), front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple operation and single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what constitutes a 'pending snippet', the consequences of rejection, or if there are any constraints, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the description repeats the schema description exactly. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it rejects a pending knowledge snippet, using a specific verb and resource, and is distinguishable from siblings like approve_knowledge_snippet, edit_knowledge_snippet, and delete_knowledge_snippet.

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., approve, edit, delete). The description implies it's for pending snippets but does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.

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