dingtalk_oa_approval_reject

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

With no annotations, the one-sentence description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether rejection is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the approval process after rejection.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words, but it may be too terse to provide adequate context. It is front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description provides no information about return values, side effects, or usage context. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient even though the parameter list is simple.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the schema sufficiently covers meanings.

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 action ('拒绝' = reject) and the resource ('一条审批单' = an approval order), distinguishing it from the sibling approve tool. However, it lacks detail about scope or context, making it clear but not rich.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like dingtalk_oa_approval_approve or dingtalk_oa_approval_tasks. The description is a standalone statement with no mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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