decline_credit_check_orderDecline a pending credit check order by passing its order object, typically from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval. Use to reject credit approvals.
WRITE: DeclineCreditCheckOrder. Pass the order object (typically from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Credit check order payload to decline |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so most of the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the redundant 'WRITE' label and does not explain whether declining is reversible, what happens to the order afterward, or what permissions are required. With annotations present, this is a minimal behavioral contribution.
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 two short sentences with no filler, and the 'WRITE' prefix plus action name are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes either the operation type or the source of the input.
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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential input source and operation type. It remains thin on what declining actually does to the order and whether the action can be undone, which an agent might need to act safely.
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 defines the single required 'order' property as a credit check order payload. The description adds marginal value by noting the object typically comes from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval, but it does not explain the object's expected shape or required fields beyond the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Decline CreditCheckOrder') and prefixes it with 'WRITE', so the agent knows this is a state-changing operation. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling approve_credit_check_order by using the opposite action, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify the approval workflow.
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 gives useful provenance by saying the order object typically comes from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval, which helps the agent know a likely workflow. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of approve_credit_check_order, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the order must be in a pending state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.