hires_unreject_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the key state changes: status becomes active and rejected_at is cleared. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or potential side effects (e.g., notifications), leaving minor gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, using two short sentences that contain no extraneous information. It directly states what the tool does and the resulting state change.

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 simple state-reversal tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains both the purpose and the exact state changes, which is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (id: 'Application ID', include: 'Comma-separated relations...'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 action: 'Undo a rejection and reopen a previously rejected application.' It uses a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('rejection'), and distinguishes it from siblings like hires_reject_application. It also explains the exact outcome: 'status returns to active and rejected_at is cleared.'

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 implies usage for previously rejected applications by specifying 'previously rejected application', which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as 'use hires_reject_application for rejecting' or 'do not use for active applications', so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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