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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the actual effect (the anomaly no longer counts and is excluded from future baselines), states that 'dismissed: false' restores it, and says the tool returns the anomaly's new state. This meaningfully clarifies why destructiveHint=true is set while the action remains reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then effect, then the alternative. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the state effect, reversibility, and the return value, and the schema already documents every parameter. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to know what changes.

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%, so site, event, note and dismissed are all documented in the schema, and the description's 'dismissed false restores it' largely restates the schema's own wording. It adds little parameter-level information beyond that baseline.

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 (mark/dismiss an anomaly as expected) and anchors it to a concrete user situation (deploy, sale, migration). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from set_anomaly_detection, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user says an unusual response or run time was expected') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Not for turning anomaly detection off: use set_anomaly_detection'). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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