Rejects an ambient run gate for a given run ID, blocking the agent service from proceeding. Add an optional note to record the decision and decided_by for audit.
Reject an ambient run gate (agent-service).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| decided_by | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the action ('reject'). It does not describe effects on the run, reversibility, required permissions, or whether note/decided_by are recorded as part of the rejection. The description is not misleading, but it is very thin.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for its content; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without usage guidance, parameter semantics, or behavioral detail. For a simple flat-schema tool it is minimally acceptable, but it is not complete enough for confident correct invocation.
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%, and the description adds no meaning for run_id, note, or decided_by. The parameter names are mildly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for absent schema documentation, so an agent must guess at their semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('reject') and resource ('ambient run gate'), with the parenthetical 'agent-service' adding scope context. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like yaaif_ambient_run_approve, pause, or stop.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve, pause, resume, or stop. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.