opencode_question_reject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what rejecting actually does: whether the pending request is cancelled permanently, how the waiting agent/requester is notified, or whether the action is reversible. For a state-changing terminal action this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks the rejected-question lifecycle, the requestId source, and any permission or side-effect context needed to call it confidently.

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 only 50%: 'directory' is documented as optional with a default, but the required 'requestId' has no description in the schema and the description text explains neither its format nor where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Reject') and resource ('a pending OpenCode question'), so the purpose is immediately legible. However, it never names the obvious sibling alternatives (opencode_question_reply or opencode_question_list), so the agent gets no explicit differentiation help.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. 'Reject' vs 'reply' for a pending question is exactly the selection the agent needs to make, and the description supplies nothing to route that decision.

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