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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the confirmation requirement and an explicit prompt-injection guard about quotedMaterial text being evidence rather than instructions. It does not say what happens if the task is already active or how failure surfaces, and the non-idempotent hint goes unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the confirmation gate, then the injection guard. Every sentence carries distinct operational value and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two things the structured fields cannot: user confirmation and injection resistance. The only real gap is edge-case behavior, such as what happens when the id refers to a task that is not currently dismissed.

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 both 'id' and 'brandSlug' are already fully documented, including the important note that brandSlug defaults to the workspace's own brand. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: bringing a dismissed task back to the user's list, which pairs obviously with the sibling parse_dismiss_task. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the inverse relationship, but the scope of 'dismissed' is precise enough to distinguish it from parse_add_topic or parse_next_tasks.

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 gives an explicit gate: 'Call only after the user confirms,' which tells the agent a prerequisite that no schema field encodes. It does not name an alternative tool or state what to do if the task was never dismissed, but the usage condition is clear.

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