reject_reconciliation_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it mutates state, is idempotent on the natural key, persists at org scope, and does NOT bump model version. This goes well beyond basic expectations and covers side effects and durability.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded summary, followed by necessary behavioral details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

Despite no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including scope, idempotency, and durability. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The relationship to list_reconciliation_candidates is clear, making this a complete description.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying the natural key (model_id, kind, own_qid, inherited_qid) and explaining that re-rejecting an existing pair returns the same row, which clarifies how parameters relate.

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's purpose: 'Reject a reconciliation candidate' and explains it records a 'these are NOT duplicates' decision. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for confirmed non-duplicates and noting idempotency on the natural key.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when list_reconciliation_candidates surfaces a pair that looks like a duplicate but the operator has confirmed it is not.' It implies when not to use (for actual duplicates) but does not explicitly name the alternative tool like apply_certain_reconciliation_match.

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