tm_reject_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral side effects. It does disclose the relay fee (0.001 USDC) and the confirm requirement, which is valuable. However, it omits whether the action is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response/impact is. This is partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraints (fee and confirm flag). No filler or redundancy; it earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and where two of three parameters lack descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after rejection (e.g., task status change, notification), any side effects, or how to obtain the required IDs. An agent would need to guess at several critical aspects.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description repeats the confirm requirement but adds no new meaning for 'taskId' or 'submissionId' — those remain undefined. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not clarify what these identifiers refer to or how they interact.

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') and the specific target ('spam or low-quality submission'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling 'tm_accept_submissions'. The additional mention of the relay fee and the confirm requirement add context without muddling the purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., 'tm_accept_submissions' or 'tm_task_submissions'). The description mentions a prerequisite (confirm:true) but does not explain the decision context for rejection or contrast with other actions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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