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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lowered; the description still adds real value by stating the required expectedVersion/idempotencyKey contract and by clarifying that artifacts are not deleted, only future preparation blocked, and that in-flight work and applied evidence are untouched. It omits failure modes (version conflict behavior, error shape).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-destructive guarantee, then requirements, then the exclusion. No filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations gap, so scope and side effects are reasonably covered, but a mutation tool with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions leaves the agent guessing about actionId sourcing and expectedVersion acquisition. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it only mentions expectedVersion and idempotencyKey and only as requirements, not formats or meanings. actionId (the primary identifier), reason, and workspace are never explained anywhere.

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) plus the resource class ('suggested/reviewed/prepared work'), and explicitly says no artifacts are deleted, which separates it from a delete tool. It does not name the sibling it should be picked over (e.g., review_preparation_action, cancel_preparation_job, restore_preparation_action), and the title's 'page suggestion' framing is slightly at odds with the body's 'prepared work' wording.

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?

Usage is implied through the exclusions: 'prevents future automatic preparation; does not undo already running work or applied evidence.' That effectively tells the agent not to use this when work is running, but it never names the alternative tool (cancel_preparation_job) or states prerequisites or when review/restore is the better call.

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