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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral detail: dismissal hides from specific tools, is reversible via status=default, lasts only until the next research run, and changes normalization of all remaining clusters. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying substantive information: the action, the affected surfaces, the persistence boundary with an alternative, and the normalization side effect. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, when to use an alternative, how long effects last, and what side effects occur. An agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is only 25%, but the description compensates for the crucial status parameter by explaining what each enum value does. It also implicitly clarifies clusterId as the opportunity cluster being dismissed or restored. The context parameter is already well explained in the schema, and projectId/clusterId are standard UUID identifiers.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dismiss or restore an opportunity cluster.' It then clarifies the two status values and their visibility effects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like set_excluded_terms.

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 names set_excluded_terms as the durable alternative for 'not my product' signals, and states that dismissal is temporary until the next research run. It also names the affected surfaces (list_opportunities and create_content_plan_from_opportunities), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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