Reject a proposed match to prevent the receipt and transaction from being suggested again.
Reject match. Reject a proposed match. The receipt and transaction won't be suggested as a match again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Match ID | |
| reason | No | Optional rejection reason |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.9Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Match ID to reject"New value: +"Match ID"Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional reason for rejection"New value: +"Optional rejection reason"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the match won't be suggested again, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant information. Every word 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?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description explains the key behavioral effect (match not suggested again). Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters), it is mostly complete for an agent to understand the purpose.
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 descriptions for id and reason. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'reject' and resource 'match', and the added detail that the receipt and transaction won't be suggested again distinguishes it from siblings like confirm_match or manual_match.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include confirm_match and manual_match, but no explicit comparison or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.