reject_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an authorization constraint (integrator-only) and implies a mutating decision, but it omits side effects, reversibility, and how base_revision or decision_note affect behavior.

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 phrase is very concise and front-loads the role restriction, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment. There is no waste, but the compactness is achieved by omitting context rather than by structured explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needs no explanation, but the description still leaves the rejection workflow, parameter meanings, and side effects largely implicit. An agent would need sibling tools and schema names to infer the intended call.

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%, so the description must compensate for five required parameters. It only hints at actor_role via 'Integrator-only'; event_id, base_revision, and decision_note semantics are left to inference from their names.

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 communicates a rejection action and an integrator role restriction, so it is more than a tautology. However, it is a fragment that never names the event resource or explicitly contrasts with accept_event/review_event beyond the word 'reject'.

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?

'Integrator-only' is an implicit usage condition: only integrators should invoke this. It does not state when rejection is appropriate or point to alternatives like accept_event, so the agent must infer the workflow context.

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