memory_candidate_reject

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

The description adds the important detail that the audit record is preserved, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true). However, it does not explain what 'reject' means in terms of state changes or side effects, and the destructiveHint might be unclear without further context.

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 a single sentence with 11 words, efficiently communicating the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple with only two required parameters and an output schema that likely covers return values. However, the lack of parameter descriptions and usage guidelines makes it incomplete for a fully informed 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no semantic information about projectId or candidateId beyond their names and types. This is a significant 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Reject a reviewed memory candidate.' It also specifies the key behavioral nuance 'without deleting its audit record,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_candidate_accept.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or the state in which the candidate must be before rejection. The phrase 'reviewed memory candidate' gives a slight hint but is insufficient.

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