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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: per-token subject scoping, the persistence rule tied to notice id lifetime, and the concrete case where a topped-up-then-depleted balance returns as a new id and reappears. The annotations only supply safety/idempotency hints; this description explains the actual dismissal semantics.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and subject before the preconditions and id-lifecycle caveat. The low-balance example is the only elaboration and it earns its place by making the id-reuse rule concrete.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the scope, the idempotency-persistent behavior, and the critical-notice carve-out. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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% with a format example ('credits_low:<grant>'), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what the notice id means operationally — dismissal is bound to that id, and id churn is why a notice can reappear — which adds real meaning about the parameter's role.

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 (close/dismiss) and resource (a workspace notice) with an explicit analogy to the console's close button, and scopes it to the token's subject. This cleanly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_notices.

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 explicit preconditions ('Only a notice with dismissible: true can be closed') and explicit exclusions ('Critical notices cannot be closed'), so an agent knows when not to call it. It does not, however, name the sibling (get_notices) that supplies notice ids in the description text itself; that reference lives only in the schema.

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