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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds what those annotations cannot: the prepare-then-confirm flow via confirmation_token, that rejecting cancels the order, that the reason is surfaced to the member, and that a signed-in Printdash account is required with a sign-in prompt otherwise.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the actor and action, then the confirmation contract, then auth. Every sentence carries information, though the auth sentence could be tighter.

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?

Output schema exists so return-summary details need not be spelled out, and the description still covers the confirmation semantics, destructive outcome, recipient of the reason, and auth precondition. Nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their constraints. The description restates that the reason is optional and shown to the member, adding little beyond the schema's own text; baseline 3 applies.

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 (a held Team order), plus the acting role (Team owner). Easily distinguished from approve_order and cancel_order without opening either 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?

Explains the two-step flow explicitly ('Nothing is decided until confirm is called after they agree') and the owner prerequisite, which routes agents to the confirm sibling. It does not contrast with cancel_order, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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