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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that restoreAll reverses every dismissal on the site, but says nothing about reversibility of a single dismissal, permissions, or what happens when neither key nor restoreAll is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first and the alternate mode second, with the list_checks pointer tucked into a parenthetical. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both operating modes and the scope of each. It is only slightly incomplete: it does not state the behavior when siteId is given but neither key nor restoreAll is set, nor any permission requirements.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying the interaction between the parameters — restoreAll overrides/supersedes key and operates site-wide — which is genuine semantic value.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Stop recommending a monitor for a site") and explicitly covers the dual mode (dismiss one vs. restore all). It distinguishes itself from the surrounding write/read tools by tying into list_checks, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like accept_structure_change or ignore_finding.

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?

It states the two conditions under which the tool is used: dismissing a single recommendation and restoring all dismissed recommendations via restoreAll. It also points at list_checks as the place where recommendations are surfaced. No explicit "when not to use" or alternative tool is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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