declineSuggestedPost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the required permission, the action performed, and the return value (True on success). It does not describe error cases or whether the action is reversible, but for a simple decline operation the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 composed of three short sentences with no filler: the action, the permission requirement, and the return value. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the required permission, and the return value. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing given the schema's thorough parameter descriptions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify comment usage or further detail chat_id/message_id semantics. Each parameter is already well documented in the schema.

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 ('Declines a suggested post') and the context ('in a direct messages chat'), distinguishing it from the sibling approveSuggestedPost. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating the action, and it provides a clear prerequisite (can_manage_direct_messages administrator right). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like approveSuggestedPost or describe conditions where the tool should not be used, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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