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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by spelling out retry semantics: reuse the key, a repeat returns the task and reports what the original call applied, and nothing changes if the task changed since. What it omits is whether a skipped task can be reopened (reopen_task exists as a sibling) and any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the terminal-state distinction front-loaded and the retry contract second. The 'A client check-in needs a skip_reason' sentence is the weakest – terse to the point of ambiguity – but nothing is padding.

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 non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the two things an agent most needs: what state transition happens and how safe retries work. Missing pieces are reopenability and the note parameter, both minor against the idempotency detail supplied.

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 only 25% – just idempotency_key is documented in the schema. The description reinforces the retry contract for that key and hints that skip_reason matters for client check-ins, but adds nothing about task_id format or the optional note field. Partial compensation for a real coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Dismisses a task') and immediately qualifies the outcome as 'terminal, distinct from done', which separates it from complete_task, delete_task, snooze_task, and reopen_task without requiring the reader to inspect schemas.

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 parenthetical 'terminal, distinct from done' plus the line about client check-ins requiring a skip_reason give real routing guidance against complete_task. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly or saying when to prefer delete_task / snooze_task, and the client check-in sentence is ambiguous about whether the reason is conditioned on task type.

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