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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive mutation, and the description adds the consequential behavioral fact: dismissal suppresses future proposals for this gap and the updated gap is returned. It doesn't say whether dismissal is reversible or how to undo it, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the effect and the return value front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 small 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description supplies the trigger and the post-state effect, and even notes the return value despite no output schema. Only error/precondition handling (already dismissed, unknown id) is left unaddressed.

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 documented enum and a pointer to list_knowledge_gaps for gapId, so the schema carries the detail. The description only reinforces that a reason accompanies the dismissal; it adds no format or constraint beyond the schema.

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 (dismiss) on a specific resource (open knowledge gap) plus the outcome ('Aide stops proposing it') and return value. The condition 'whose fix the user doesn't want' implicitly separates it from mark_knowledge_gap_done, though that sibling is never named.

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 a clear trigger: use when the gap is open and the user has declined the fix. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with mark_knowledge_gap_done or stating what to do if the gap is already closed, so the boundary with the closest sibling must still be inferred.

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