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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, and the description goes beyond them: it explains that evidence is kept and the reason is attached, and it discloses auth requirements (Last Price credential with routing write scope, owner/admin from the dashboard) plus a concrete 403 failure mode for unclaimed/sandbox workspaces. It doesn't describe the response, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then preconditions and auth. Dense but every clause carries information; the final sentence is long and stacks two distinct ideas (credential scope, workspace claim status) which slightly hurts scanability.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state change, what is preserved, auth prerequisites, and the main error condition. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying candidate_id to get_forge_status and reinforcing that the reason is persisted alongside the evidence, which the schema only partially conveys ('kept with its evidence').

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 and resource ('Reject one of your workspace's Forge candidates') and immediately describes the effect: it stops climbing the promotion ladder and retains its evidence. An agent can distinguish this from the accept path and from read tools like get_forge_status without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the source of the id ('an id from get_forge_status') and gives a negative precondition: a candidate already rejected, retired or promoted cannot be rejected. That is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed to avoid a wasted call.

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