reject_candidate

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are present and not contradicted. The description adds that the reason is appended for heuristic tuning, which is useful context, but does not detail other behavioral effects (e.g., status change, triggers).

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?

Extremely concise: two brief clauses with no redundant wording. Every part contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers the basic action and a notable side effect (reason appended for tuning). However, given it's a mutation tool with an output schema and multiple siblings, it lacks context on the overall candidate lifecycle, return values, or any follow-up actions.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'reason' being appended for tuning, but does not clarify the meaning or format of either 'id' (presumably candidate ID) or 'reason' more explicitly. The agent must infer from parameter names.

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 'Mark rejected', which is a clear verb+resource. The tool name and sibling 'accept_candidate' leave no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives like 'accept_candidate'. The description does not specify when rejection is appropriate or any prerequisites.

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