Reject GL Entry

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), description explains it sets status to 'rejected' and records rejector+reason in audit trail. Adds TRUST AREA context. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences covering purpose, effect, role, and example. Bilingual without redundancy. Every sentence adds necessary information; no filler.

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?

With output schema present and annotations, description covers core aspects: action, effects, requirements, and example. Slight omission of output details, but output schema compensates. Reasonable completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage. Description adds an example (entryId='gl_2026_q1_042', reason='Importe incorrecto...') that clarifies expected formats and usage, adding value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Reject a General Ledger journal entry pending review', specifying the action and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'frihet_gl_entry_approve' (approve) and 'frihet_gl_entry_audit_log' (audit log).

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?

Specifies role requirement ('gestor/admin role') and mandatory reason. Implicitly contrasts with approve/audit tools by naming the action. Could explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear enough.

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