envelope_reject

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals an operator-attribution gate and precisely documents the non-obvious reopen_when semantics: empty means NEVER, non-empty means NOT YET, mirroring nestor.memory.reject_match. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 with the action front-loaded and every subsequent clause adding a useful behavioral detail. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Strong for a small action tool, but there is no mention of the return value, success outcome, or how to actually satisfy the operator-attribution gate. Since there is no output schema, those gaps are not filled elsewhere.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds real value for reopen_when, but proposal_id and reason receive no semantic detail beyond their names and the general proposal context. This is partial, not complete, compensation.

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 opening clause "Record a 'no' on a proposal" names a concrete action, a specific resource, and the polarity of the operation. Referencing envelope_ratify also helps distinguish it from the likely 'yes' sibling and from other envelope tools.

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 makes the basic use case clear and compares the gate to envelope_ratify, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over envelope_ratify or other alternatives. The selection is largely implied rather than stated.

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