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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the record is not published and is cleared a week later, i.e. a delayed soft-delete, plus the irreversibility. It doesn't cover auth requirements or the return shape, but the annotations plus this context are solid.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the condition, then the side effects. No filler. The trailing "This cannot be undone." could be folded in but is an effective standalone warning.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers usage, effect, and permanence, leaving only the identity of `id` unaddressed and no routing to bulk_reject_supports for multi-record cases.

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% and the single parameter `id` is never mentioned or explained. The description's reference to "one supporter" only weakly implies that id identifies the supporter record. With only one parameter the gap is small, but the description does nothing to compensate for the uncovered 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Reject one supporter"), with the word "one" implicitly distinguishing it from the bulk_reject_supports sibling. It is clearly not the approve path. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives directly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 concrete when-to-use condition (creator checked the bank and the payment isn't there). It does not name an alternative (e.g. bulk_reject_supports) or state any exclusion, so it's clear context without routing guidance.

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