Reject an order

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing downstream effects: the buyer is refunded and is told the rejection reason, and a user confirmation precedes execution. It does not say whether a rejection can be undone or what happens to later order lifecycle states, which matters for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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, trigger condition front-loaded, no redundant restatement of the title or annotations. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only) and there is no output schema, so the description's job is mostly consequences and parameters. It covers consequences well but leaves the `id` parameter and reversibility unexplained.

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 only 33% and the description supplies no parameter detail at all. The `id` parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to infer it is the seller order identifier.

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 (reject) and resource (a seller order on one of their medias) plus the qualifying state: it must be an order awaiting acceptance. It implicitly distinguishes from growwer_accept_seller_order through the 'seller will not take an order' condition, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when a seller will not take an order ... that waits for acceptance') and notes the user is asked to confirm first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a concrete alternative such as accept_seller_order.

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