Record rejection

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

With no protective annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses append-only behavior, persistence across future resume contexts, and the permanent 'Do NOT revisit' classification. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral consequence is explained in the second sentence.

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 an append-only record tool without an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its lasting effect, and how it groups with sibling record_* tools. Missing a note on return value or idempotency, but neither is critical for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains title, reason, and project in detail. The description restates the conceptual pairing of the rejection and reason but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Append'), a distinct resource (an alternative that was considered and rejected), and the unique outcome (listed under 'Do NOT revisit'). The purpose is immediately clear and does not rely on the title.

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 gives clear context: use it for rejected alternatives so they are not re-proposed. It does not explicitly name record_decision or record_constraint as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the semantic boundaries are inferable from the stated purpose.

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