reject_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is a soft delete, that the record is retained, that status becomes 'rejected', and that the action is recoverable. It omits permission/auth requirements and any side effects on related data, but the mutation semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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 compact lines, front-loaded with the core action and soft-delete semantics, followed by the parameter note. No filler, though the parameter line restates information that is nearly inferable from the property name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter mutation, the description supplies the essential facts (soft delete, reversible, status outcome). Missing only preconditions such as the draft needing to be in a pending state, which the description does hint at via '待审批'.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that experience_id is 'the draft's id', which is a marginal clarification (the schema already names it 'Experience Id'), but adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond what the property name implies.

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 ('拒绝' = reject) and resource ('待审批草稿' = pending-approval draft) and immediately disambiguates it from hard-delete siblings by declaring it a soft delete with status set to 'rejected'. An agent can distinguish this from approve_experience, delete_experience, and purge_experiences without opening any 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?

Restricting the tool to '待审批草稿' (pending drafts) implies the correct usage context relative to approve_experience, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given (e.g., 'use delete_experience for permanent removal, restore_experience to undo').

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