tempo_reject_timesheet

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, open-world operation; the description goes further by disclosing the confirmation protocol (elicitation prompt vs. a preview/confirmToken round-trip) and the resulting state change back to the user. It still omits whether the rejection is reversible or resubmittable and how errors surface, which keeps it from full marks.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the reviewer/comment requirement, then the confirmation mechanics. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the effect on the timesheet, the reviewer role, the comment, and the full confirmation flow including the fallback token path. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the cross-references to tempo_get_periods and tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting. The description's treatment of comment and confirmToken restates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reject a submitted timesheet) and names the consequence (sent back to the user for changes). It labels the actor ('Reviewer action'), which implicitly separates it from user-side siblings like tempo_submit_timesheet or tempo_recall_timesheet, but it never explicitly names the closest alternatives (tempo_approve_timesheet, tempo_reopen_timesheet).

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?

Gives clear context: this is the reviewer-side action and a comment explaining the reason should be supplied. It does not, however, state when to choose rejection over approving or reopening, nor any exclusion conditions, so the alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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