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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: dismissal is sticky, auto-promotion stops permanently, and the promoted relevance boost is removed. This meaningfully adds context about persistence and side effects. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-read-only nature, so the description does not need to restate those.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the purpose, the behavioral consequences, and the persistence caveat with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. The main residual gaps are the unstated workspaceId semantics and the absence of any return-value or response expectations, both minor for this simple mutation.

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?

The schema already documents creatorId with a helpful source ('Creator ID from campaignstack_list_lead_magnet_creators'), but workspaceId has no description and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 50% schema coverage and no compensating description, parameter semantics are only partially clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Dismiss a creator') and then explains the exact consequences: no more auto-promotion and no promoted relevance boost. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling dismiss_lead_magnet_post (which targets a post, not a creator) and from promote_lead_magnet_creator by noting dismissal is sticky until promoted by hand.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a creator should never auto-promote again and should stop receiving the promoted relevance boost. It also implies the undo path ('until promoted by hand'), but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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