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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: changes affect the whole workspace, dismissals are visible to all members, dismissed items return after cooldown, and closing a card does not fix the underlying cause. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential operational information. It front-loads the core action, then covers workspace-wide impact, recurrence behavior, cooldown, and the key exclusion of applying recommendations. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: workspace visibility, who is affected, persistence of state changes, cooldown behavior, and the limitation that proposed changes are not applied. The schema covers all parameter meanings, so nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a rich description. The tool description adds meaningful behavioral semantics beyond the schema, such as 'dismissing a recommendation hides it from every member' and 'records who decided,' which enrich understanding of action and note parameters.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change one Pulse item's state'), immediately clarifying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_pulse_item and from apply_actions by explicitly stating it does not apply a recommendation's proposed change.

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 gives strong context on when each action is appropriate, including workspace-wide effects, cooldowns, and re-raising by detectors. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives and when to prefer them, but the 'dashboard action' contrast and action semantics provide clear practical guidance.

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