reject_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the immediate state transition to 'awaiting_human', which is useful. But it does not mention consequences such as whether the rejection is final, whether the contract can be reopened, or what happens to the bound acceptor's obligations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and state change. There is no filler or repetition, and every phrase adds meaning.

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 state-changing workflow tool with five required parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on when to invoke this versus accept_contract, what base_revision represents, how decision_note is used, and what the output will contain beyond the state transition.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five required parameters. Parameter names like contract_id and actor_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but base_revision and decision_note remain ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('rejects the contract') and the resource, and adds the specific criterion 'criteria inadequate'. It conveys the primary state change ('moves to awaiting_human'), which helps distinguish it from accept_contract, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the acceptor finds the criteria inadequate. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to accept_contract, evaluate_contract, or other related workflow tools.

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