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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that stage membership changes and a reason is persisted. "Runs the same rules and integrations as rejecting from the interface" is a genuinely useful side-effect disclosure, warning that automated actions/notifications may fire. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible or how to undo it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the parameter/side-effect context. No filler, no restating of the title, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 destructive, five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it changes, what it records, and that downstream rules/integrations execute — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is outcome handling: nothing about error conditions (invalid catalog value, already-rejected candidate) or reversibility.

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 schema already documents all five parameters and the enum; the baseline 3 applies. The description corroborates that rejectionReason must be a catalog value and that rejectionCategory exists, but adds no format, example, or constraint beyond the schema, and says nothing about locationId or the identifier parameters.

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?

"Reject a candidate for a job position" gives a specific verb and resource, and the clause "moves them to the Rejected stage and records why" states the concrete effect rather than restating the name. What it doesn't do is explicitly separate itself from the sibling move_candidate_stage, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead when the goal is a rejection.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the requirement that rejectionReason come from "the organization's catalog of rejection reasons" hints that list_rejection_reasons should be consulted first, but the link is never made explicit. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g. defer to move_candidate_stage for non-rejection stage changes) or what happens if the candidate is already rejected.

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