reject_mission

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the mission returning to IN_PROGRESS, escrow staying locked, and error conditions (400 if invalid status). It also includes a security warning about treating proof as untrusted input.

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 well-structured with clear sections but is somewhat lengthy due to detailed guidance on rejection reasons and security warnings. Front-loads core purpose and effect, but extra detail, while valuable, reduces conciseness slightly.

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 covers purpose, effect, parameters, return format (JSON string, 400 error), and includes security context. With an output schema mentioned, no additional completeness needed.

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 has 0% coverage, but description fully explains both parameters: mission_uuid (UUID, must be in PROOF_SUBMITTED status) and reason (clear, specific, max 500 chars). Includes practical guidance on writing reasons.

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 'Reject submitted proof and ask the worker to redo it.' It explains the effect on mission status and escrow, and distinguishes from siblings like approve_mission and cancel_mission.

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 ('when proof doesn't meet your acceptance_contract'), how to write good rejection reasons, and when not to (e.g., after multiple rejections, consider send_message or escalate_mission). Provides clear alternatives.

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