Chase the Client on rejected files

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it flags every rejected file, moves the request back to awaiting the Client, returns it to the automatic reminder cadence, does not email anything itself, and keeps the optional message in the audit trail rather than sending it. This is rich, accurate context that matches the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the trigger condition, describes the immediate effects, clarifies the email behavior, and closes with an explicit negative usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema.rand With no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what side effects occur, what the message field does, and how to avoid misuse. No important gap remains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the message is not sent to the Client)Skip, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents for request_id and message.

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: call this when a Document Request has rejected files and the Professional wants the Client to resend them. It specifies the resource and the exact state change (flags rejected files, moves request back to awaiting the Client, returns to reminder cadence), distinguishing it from sibling read-only tools like get_request.

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 gives the precondition for use: a Document Request with rejected files and a Professional wanting the Client to send them again. It also states a clear exclusion: do not use on a request with no rejected file, and points to get_request as the way to check which files were rejected.

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