reject_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the job is pushed back to IN_PROGRESS for revision. However, it does not mention permissions, fund impacts, reversibility, or response format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences convey the actor, action, object, and consequence without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the primary state change. It lacks detail on permissions, error cases, or further workflow implications, but is adequate for a basic reject-and-revision operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'reason' by stating the rejection includes a reason, and 'jobId' is implied by 'work'. Param names are simple and self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify formats or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 uses a specific verb ('rejects') and resource ('work') with a clear effect ('Pushes the job back to IN_PROGRESS for revision'). It distinguishes reject_work from sibling tools like approve_work and cancel_job by explicitly describing the revision state transition.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: a poster rejects submitted work and sends it back for revision. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to differentiate from approval or cancellation.

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