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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: permission requirement ('requires the 'act' scope'), cost ('Free'), and feedback behavior ('unknown keys are ignored by the learning loop', 'improves future marketing drafts'). It does not clarify if dismissal is reversible or permanent, but the annotations already indicate non-destructive.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information (purpose, scope/cost, feedback details) without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, permission requirement, cost, and feedback behavior. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but the operation is straightforward and the provided context is sufficient 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.

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that feedback_key is a closed vocabulary (see enum) and that feedback_note is free-text which 'improves future marketing drafts'. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though it does not elaborate on move_id beyond the schema's 'from list_feed'.

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 clearly states the action: 'Dismiss a growth move' with the parenthetical 'Skip in the Feed' adding specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_move or ship_move. The verb 'dismiss' is action-oriented and the resource is explicit.

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 gives useful context (free, requires act scope, feedback improves drafts) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for skipping while archive_move or undo_move are for other purposes, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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