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

Adds context the annotations cannot carry: the 'destructive' action is really a reversible hide, the reason is persisted with the task, a user confirmation is required before calling, and there is an explicit prompt-injection guard about quotedMaterial. These are real behavioral constraints beyond destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and effect, and each sentence carries distinct value (trigger, effect, reversal, confirmation/injection guard). No 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers trigger, effect, reversibility, precondition, and safety, which is everything needed to call this 3-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so id, reason, and brandSlug are already fully documented in the schema, including that id must come from parse_next_tasks. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('dismiss a task') and immediately clarifies the actual effect ('hides it from their list with their reason'). It also names the reversal sibling parse_restore_task, so an agent can distinguish this from restore without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('when the user does not want a task'), explicit alternative ('restore it with parse_restore_task'), and an explicit precondition ('call only after the user confirms'). When-to-use, when-not, and the counterpart tool are all stated.

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