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 useful behavior beyond annotations: each document receives a history record and the response includes notFound and alreadyInAccounting categories, with already-accounting documents explicitly skipped. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility, or whether the batch is atomic.

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 compact sentences are front-loaded with the core action and limit, followed by side effects and return categories. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return categories and skip behavior, which are essential for correct invocation. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning authorization requirements or whether rejection is reversible, but the core operational context is present.

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 ids and reason are already documented in the schema, including the 100-item limit. The description repeats the max-100 constraint and clarifies that the reason is shared, but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond 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 states a specific bulk action ('Zamitne vice dokladu najednou') with a shared reason and a hard limit of 100. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling reject_document without needing to open 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?

It makes clear this is for rejecting multiple documents at once with a common reason, which implies use over reject_document for batches. However, it does not explicitly name reject_document as the alternative for single-document rejection or state when not to use bulk mode.

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