reject_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description partly discloses behavior (appending reason for tuning) but does not explain side effects like what happens to the candidate (deleted? archived?), authorization needs, or rate limits. It adds some context but is incomplete.

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 very concise (one sentence, front-loaded). While efficient, it risks being under-specified, but it still earns a high score for avoiding unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimal. It omits what the output looks like and what 'rationale' refers to. Adequate for a basic mutation but has gaps.

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 0%. The description adds meaning to 'reason' (appended to rationale) but explains nothing about 'id'. For low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it only partially does so for one parameter.

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 marks a candidate as rejected and appends the reason to rationale for heuristic tuning. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_candidate.

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 implies use when rejecting a candidate but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like accept_candidate or any exclusions. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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