goods_receipt_reject_lines

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the key business effects: no stock movement, no order-quantity reduction, the ordered quantity remains open for later receipt, and reason is recorded with the actor on an append-only rejection event. It also documents the invalid state transition for non-pending lines.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful information, with no filler. Each sentence adds either business-effect clarification, audit behavior, or a state-transition rule.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the important business and audit consequences well. It still leaves parameter-level guidance thin, especially for idempotencyKey, but the operational semantics are largely complete.

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 coverage is 0% for five required parameters, and the description explains only reason and, indirectly, the line-state precondition. It does not clarify workspaceId, grId, lineIds semantics, or idempotencyKey, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 precise operation: refusing HELD goods-receipt lines after a quality check. The verb 'refuse/reject' plus the line-state condition makes it clearly distinct from accepting lines or cancelling the receipt.

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?

It clearly frames when the tool applies: HELD lines after quality check, and it notes that non-pending lines fail with invalid_transition. It does not explicitly name the alternative accept/reverse/cancel tools, but the usage context is largely clear.

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