bulk_reject_candidates

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Bulk reject... at once' but does not disclose whether rejection is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur. Major gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second provides parameter guidance. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists but description does not explain return values. For a mutation tool, missing information on what happens to rejected candidates (deleted? marked?) and any prerequisites. Incomplete given tool complexity and lack of annotations.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds value by suggesting mutual exclusivity ('either...or') and providing an example for pattern_type_prefix, improving agent understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'reject', resource 'mining candidates', and scope 'bulk' and 'multiple at once'. Distinguishes from sibling 'reject_candidate' (singular) and 'approve_candidate' (different action).

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?

Description implies usage for rejecting multiple candidates but does not explicitly contrast with the singular 'reject_candidate' or state when not to use. It provides parameter choice guidance ('either pattern_ids or pattern_type_prefix') but lacks clear when-to-use vs alternatives.

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