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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: the write scope requirement and the effect on subsequent assessments. However, with destructiveHint=true set, it never clarifies what is actually destroyed or whether the removal is reversible, and the sentence 'The finding itself stays dismissed; only dismissing a finding adds an entry' muddles rather than clarifies the mutation's impact.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the total length is appropriately short. But the middle sentence about the finding staying dismissed is confusing and arguably redundant, spending words without adding usable information for the caller.

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 the return-value sentence is supplementary rather than necessary. For a destructive mutation with two fully undocumented parameters and no named counterpart tool, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to close before calling it safely.

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% — neither model_id nor finding_id carries any documentation, and the description does not mention either parameter. It is unclear whether model_id is a target profile id or a model identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — removing a dismissal entry from a target's profile — which is clearly distinct from siblings like close_finding or update_target_profile. The intent is legible, though the follow-up sentence about the finding staying dismissed partially obscures what is actually being removed.

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?

It gives the downstream effect ('so later assessments stop taking it into account'), which implies when to use it. But it never names the counterpart operation that creates a dismissal, nor states when not to call it, leaving the agent to infer the pairing from the schema.

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