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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the dismissal is recorded in goal history, surfaced in goal-get, and remains distinguishable from 'no hole was found'. It also states the long-term consequence that the hole remains open, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke this mutation.

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 three focused sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and condition, the second explains the requirement and audit trail, and the third provides the safer alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, requirements, consequences, and the preferred alternative. The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is idempotent, and the description adds the remaining behavioral context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including goalId and a detailed Russian description of reason requiring at least 80 characters. The tool description mostly restates the reason requirement rather than adding new semantic detail, though it usefully frames the reason as explaining 'why the counterexample does not apply'.

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 states a specific action ('Dismiss the red-team finding that blocks a goal from starting') and the condition for using it ('when you disagree with the verdict'). It clearly distinguishes itself from nearby alternatives like goal-add-criterion by explaining that dismissing is not the same as fixing the underlying hole.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('when you disagree with the verdict'), what is required (a reason of at least 80 characters), and which alternative to prefer ('Prefer fixing the acceptance criteria via goal-add-criterion'). It also warns that dismissing leaves the hole open, giving a clear reason to avoid this tool unless necessary.

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