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

Annotations already set non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it 'surfaces again', but does not disclose error handling or prerequisites (e.g., suggestion must be dismissed). With annotations present, this adds moderate value.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 10 words) and front-loads the action. Every word adds value with no 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?

For a simple inverse action with one parameter and output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps in behavioral details (e.g., error states) but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'suggestion_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning, and 100% schema coverage justifies baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('Undo a dismissal') and the effect ('so the suggestion can surface again'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling 'colony_dismiss_suggestion' which does the opposite.

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 implies when to use: when you have dismissed a suggestion and want to reverse it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but given the tool's single-purpose nature, this is adequate.

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