nexo_evolution_reject

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Reject' implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what occurs after rejection (e.g., whether the proposal is archived or deleted). The description is insufficiently transparent for a mutation tool.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing brevity.

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 mutation with two parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about when to invoke the tool (e.g., only for pending proposals) and what the outcome is. No output schema exists, but the description does not explain return values.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (log_id and reason) with detailed descriptions. The description adds 'with reason' but no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('reject') and target ('pending Evolution proposal with reason'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'nexo_evolution_approve'. The inclusion of 'with reason' directly references the reason parameter.

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?

While the description indicates the tool is for rejecting proposals, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'nexo_evolution_approve' instead) or any prerequisites like the proposal must be pending. Implicit guidance exists through the name and sibling context, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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