reject_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: the actor must be the Owner (an authorization constraint) and the rejection is 'receipted' (a side effect that presumably feeds list_receipts). It omits whether rejection is reversible, what happens on an invalid state transition, and what the receipted result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the actor, action, precondition, and consequence are all packed in efficiently. Slightly terse, with jargon ('receipted') that could cost a sentence of clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, actor, precondition, and the receipting side effect. It is not complete enough to call safely, though, since the unexplained 'reason' parameter and the absence of any failure/reversibility guidance leave real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. The 'reason' parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is required, free-text, or surfaced to the applicant — and application_id format/validity is also unaddressed.

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 (rejects) and resource (application) plus the required source state (prepared/approved), which distinguishes it from approve_application and prepare_application. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the state precondition does the differentiation work implicitly.

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 phrase 'prepared/approved application' implies the calling context (after prepare/approve), so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no guidance on what to do if the application is in another state, and no mention of when rejection is inappropriate.

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