reject_pending_order

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

The description discloses the core behavioral consequence ('order does not open') but does not cover side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and while it adds some value, it is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a clarifying consequence.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with zero explanation. The description only addresses the basic rejection action, leaving parameter purposes and operational context unaddressed, making it inadequate for reliable 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?

The description mentions no parameters. The input schema lists four parameters (reason, order_id, request_id, idempotency_key) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate but completely fails to explain any parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states 'rejects the pending order' (Onay bekleyen emri reddeder) with the clarification that the order will not open (emir açılmaz). This clearly defines the tool's function, distinguishes it from approve_pending_order, and uses a specific verb and resource.

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 the tool is used when rejecting pending orders, but it does not provide explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. Sibling tools like approve_pending_order are not referenced, so the usage guidance is merely inferential rather than explicit.

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