Reject Reconciliation Candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool mutates state, is idempotent on the natural key, persists at org scope across sessions and teammates, does not bump model version, and returns the same row on re-rejection — excellent transparency for a mutation tool.

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 information-dense with no filler. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, state mutation, idempotency semantics, usage condition, and persistence scope are all covered in a compact, readable structure.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, when to use it, what the durable effect is, what does not happen, and the idempotency behavior. No critical operational detail needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 descriptions already cover 4 of 5 parameters. The description adds valuable semantic context by identifying which parameters form the natural key, (model_id, kind, own_qid, inherited_qid), and explaining that these define the rejection pair. It does not add specific meaning for server_version, but the schema coverage and the description's key-grouping insight go beyond the input 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reject a reconciliation candidate' and clarifies exactly what this means — recording the operator's 'these are NOT duplicates' decision at org scope so the candidate detector filters the pair from the active queue. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apply_certain_reconciliation_match and unreject_reconciliation_candidate.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' condition tied to list_reconciliation_candidates, which tells an agent precisely when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives like apply_certain_reconciliation_match or unreject_reconciliation_candidate, but the usage 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.