unreject_reconciliation_candidate

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It states that the tool mutates state, that the pair becomes eligible again on next read, and explicitly notes that model version is NOT bumped — a non-obvious behavioral 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?

The description is dense but well-structured, with the core action front-loaded and each sentence adding a distinct piece of information: mutation, effect on queue, when to use, and a notable non-effect. No filler or repetition.

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 fully covers purpose, usage, effects, and provenance of the key identifier. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable. For a state-mutating tool with no annotations, this is a complete and actionable 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?

The schema already documents model_id and rejection_id; the description adds useful provenance for rejection_id by pointing to rejections[*].id or the return value of reject_reconciliation_candidate. However, the required server_version parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Remove a persisted reconciliation rejection' — a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's action. It further distinguishes itself from related siblings by explaining it reverses a prior rejection and makes the pair eligible again for the candidate queue.

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 names the source of rejection_id and references both list_reconciliation_candidates and reject_reconciliation_candidate, giving the agent clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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