AfterLaunch

dismiss_gap

Set aside one AI visibility (GEO) gap the founder is not going to act on: a tracked question where rivals get named and this product does not. The same verdict as skip_move, on the AI visibility surface, and it resolves the gap in ONE place: it stops being re-proposed here AND on the growth Feed, and the reason improves what gets ranked next. Free; requires the 'act' scope, and available on every plan because telling the agent "not this one" is never a paid feature. Idempotent: a gap already shipped or archived is left as it is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Why it is being set aside. Closed vocabulary; unknown keys are ignored by the learning loop.
`prompt_id`	Yes	The tracked question id, from get_visibility.
`prompt_text`	Yes	The tracked question text, from get_visibility. Both fields are required: together they identify the gap.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral outcomes beyond annotations: it resolves the gap in one place (stops being re-proposed on the growth Feed), improves future ranking via the reason, and is idempotent. It also mentions cost/plan availability. This adds significant context to the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise yet comprehensive: it covers what, why, comparison, effect, cost, scope, and idempotency in a few sentences with no fluff. Every clause adds value and is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, effects, prerequisites, and edge cases (already shipped/archived). It also differentiates from siblings and covers all relevant context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates that prompt_id and prompt_text are required together but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already states. No additional parameter clarification is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set aside one AI visibility (GEO) gap the founder is not going to act on.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool skip_move by specifying 'The same verdict as skip_move, on the AI visibility surface,' clarifying the exact scope and differentiating it from alternative actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly describes when to use it: 'a tracked question where rivals get named and this product does not' and 'the founder is not going to act on.' It contrasts with skip_move, provides prerequisites ('requires the act scope'), and explains the idempotent behavior, giving clear context for selection.

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

All AfterLaunch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.

Resources

Need Help?