acp_reject_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral detail of 'auto-resolving the pending memo and signing rejection', which gives some process insight. However, it does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, state changes, or authorization needs beyond what the annotation hints at, leaving the description to only partially supplement the annotation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and target. It contains no redundant words or filler, and every phrase adds meaning (e.g., 'auto-resolving' and 'signing rejection').

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns on success, what side effects occur (e.g., job state changes, refunds), or any prerequisites like an active wallet or transaction confirmation. The description leaves significant gaps for safe use, especially given its destructive nature.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (jobId, reason, chainId), each with a clear description. The tool description does not add any further semantic meaning or clarify parameter relationships, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema baseline.

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 action ('Reject'), the target ('a job on the Virtuals ACPRouter'), and the mechanism ('auto-resolving the pending memo and signing rejection'). This distinguishes it from related ACP tools like acp_complete_job or acp_claim_refund.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to reject versus complete or claim refund, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The only usage signal is the tool name and the verb 'reject', which is insufficient for an agent to decide among sibling job lifecycle tools.

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