Reject GL Entry

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent. The description adds that it sets status to 'rejected' and records audit trail, which is consistent. No contradictions, but the description provides only marginal extra behavioral context beyond 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 concise, including essential details in two sentences plus an example and a bilingual note. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The bilingual format is acceptable for the target audience.

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?

The description covers the core action, role requirement, and audit record. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return value or confirmation. Given the simplicity (2 required params) and annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with bilingual descriptions. The tool description adds an explicit example for both parameters and clarifies that 'reason' is mandatory and visible to the submitter, enhancing understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool rejects a pending GL journal entry, sets status to 'rejected', and records audit data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'frihet_gl_entry_approve' and 'frihet_gl_entry_audit_log' by specifying the action and context.

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 description specifies required role (gestor/admin) and labels it a TRUST AREA action, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list includes the approving tool, making the usage boundary clear.

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