Reject a spam or low-quality submission

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: a small relay fee is incurred, no reward is paid, and a prior preview call is required. This is informative but omits permissions, reversibility, and error scenarios.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action, outcome, and prerequisite are front-loaded and clearly highlighted.

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?

Covers the core effect and prerequisite, but with no output schema or annotations, it does not describe return values, error conditions, or reversibility. Given the mutation type and four parameters, some gaps remain.

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 just 25% (only 'reason' has a description). The tool description adds meaning for confirmationToken by explaining its origin, but leaves taskId and worker undocumented, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Marks one worker's submission rejected (small relay fee, no reward paid).' This identifies the exact action and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling preview_reject_submission by noting the actual rejection and its consequences.

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?

Explicitly requires a confirmationToken from a prior preview_reject_submission call, which directs the agent to use preview first. It also specifies 'one worker's submission,' limiting scope, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like award tools.

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