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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the target state (Archived), dashboard reversibility, and the preview-vs-apply two-step behavior – none of which the annotations convey.

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 sentences, zero waste, effect front-loaded before the preview/confirm instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 reversible mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, where it goes, reversibility, and the required confirm workflow. No significant gap remains.

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 100%, so all three parameters (brand, confirm, action_id) are already documented, including where each id comes from. The description's 'confirm: true applies' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Dismiss an action-plan item') and immediately describes the concrete effect (moved to Archived, out of next best actions). This clearly separates it from the sibling mark_action_done, which handles the opposite user intent.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('item the user does not want to do') and an explicit operational protocol: 'Preview first; confirm: true applies.' No alternative tool is named explicitly, but the intent-based routing is unambiguous.

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