Unreject Reconciliation Candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it well. It explicitly says 'Mutates state,' describes the consequence that the pair becomes eligible again on the next read, and clarifies a potentially surprising non-effect: it does NOT bump the model version. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects.

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 compact and well-organized: first the core action, then when/how to use, then a key caveat. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, usage context, parameter source, and behavioral side effects. No critical information for correctly invoking the tool 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?

The schema already describes model_id and rejection_id, and the description adds important provenance for rejection_id by explaining it comes from rejections[*].id on list_reconciliation_candidates or from reject_reconciliation_candidate's return value. server_version remains undocumented in both schema and description, though the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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?

Description opens with 'Remove a persisted reconciliation rejection,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the action. It further distinguishes itself by referencing the inverse operation reject_reconciliation_candidate, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the operator changes their mind about a prior rejection.' It also tells the agent exactly where to obtain rejection_id, pointing to list_reconciliation_candidates with disposition='rejected' or the return value of reject_reconciliation_candidate. This is strong routing guidance.

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