hires_reject_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently indicates that suppression of the rejection email is possible and implies that by default an email is sent. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., changes to application status, reversibility) or the return value, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then providing two actionable pointers. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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?

The description covers the core action and key parameter sources, but it does not explain what the tool returns (since there is no output schema) or any prerequisites for rejecting an application. This leaves some gaps for an agent, though the tool is simple and the provided details are helpful.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains that rejection_reason_id must come from GET /taxonomy/rejection-reasons and clarifies that suppress_notification skips the rejection email, which helps the agent correctly select and set these 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reject an application' with an optional rejection reason. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like hires_batch_reject_applications or hires_unreject_application, leaving the 'single application' aspect implicit.

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?

The description gives useful context on how to use the optional rejection reason (fetch from GET /taxonomy/rejection-reasons) and how to suppress the default rejection email. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., batch rejection) or any exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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