Reject a partner application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the partner is notified by email that the application was not approved, making the side effect externally visible and irreversible. It still omits the confirm requirement and the permanence implications of reapplicationTimeframe.

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, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the notification consequence immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with a nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the action and its external side effect adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. It would be stronger if it noted the confirm gate or that 'never' reapplication is permanent, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 documents partnerId, rejectionReason, rejectionNote, flagForFraud, and reapplicationTimeframe in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Reject a pending partner application') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling approve_program_application and list_program_applications via the 'pending' qualifier. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 word 'pending' implies the application must be in a pending state, which is a mild usage condition. However, no alternatives are named, no prerequisites (such as the required confirm=true or the account label) are given, and no when-not-to-use guidance appears.

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