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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: the action 'never runs' after rejection, the actor is the signed-in teammate, and the supplied reason is persisted on the action. It does not address reversibility or what happens if the action is not in pending_approval, keeping it below 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, the precondition, the actor, and the effect, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens (action never runs) and what is retained (the reason). It omits edge-case behavior such as errors when the action is not pending_approval or whether the rejection can be undone.

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 both actionId and reason are already documented in the schema, including that actionId comes from list_order_actions. The description's 'the reason is kept on the action' adds a small persistence nuance but nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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 (order action) plus the gating precondition (status `pending_approval`), which is exactly what separates it from the sibling approve_order_action. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — the action must be waiting for approval — and implies the alternative (approval) through that same precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming approve_order_action or stating when not to use this tool, so it is clear context without full when/when-not guidance.

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