reject_order

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, permissions, or state changes. 'Reject an incoming order' only restates the purpose and does not explain what happens after rejection, system impacts, or any required authorization.

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, focused clause with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks critical context: no usage scenarios, no side-effect disclosure, and no information about return values or outcomes. With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know the full consequences of invoking this tool.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (order_id and reason) with clear descriptions, so the schema carries the explanatory burden. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, landing at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 'Reject an incoming order' clearly states a specific action (reject) on a specific resource (order). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like accept_order, get_order, and list_orders.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accept_order or get_order. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where rejection is appropriate. The instruction is purely the action, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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