invariance_dna_reject_edge_candidate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim that rejection means 'never promoted' adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether rejection is reversible, whether it affects related candidates, or what the response looks like. The description adds some value beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key outcome ('never promoted') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the action and the consequence. However, it doesn't clarify whether rejection is permanent or reversible, which could matter for an agent deciding between reject and other candidate-management tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Edge candidate ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Reject') and resource ('DNA edge candidate') with a clear outcome ('so it is never promoted'). It distinguishes from siblings like accept_edge_candidate and promote_edge_candidate, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies when to use it: when an edge candidate should be rejected and never promoted. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like accept_edge_candidate or promote_edge_candidate, leaving some inference to the agent.

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