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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond them: which states are cancellable, an explicit exclusion boundary for live/published posts, and the write-scope authorization requirement.

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: the action and eligibility come first, then the exclusion, then the auth requirement. No sentence is padding and nothing important is buried.

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 destructive bulk operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers eligibility, exclusions, and permissions. It omits what a dismissal returns and whether it is reversible/undoable, which is the remaining gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% with a single 'ids' parameter that the schema already documents as 'Post ids to dismiss.' The description adds no batching semantics, id-format notes, or guidance on mixing states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (cancel/dismiss) applied to a named resource (posts) and enumerates the exact states it applies to: proposed, scheduled, failed, handed-off. The clause 'Nothing already publishing or published is touched' separates it from siblings like posts_publish and posts_approve without needing to open their 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?

Eligibility is stated precisely by post state, which tells the agent when this tool applies and when it does not. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the ineligible states (e.g. what to use for a publishing post), so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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