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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effect that a DISMISSED feedback signal is recorded against the risk category and downweights future detector runs, plus the precise idempotency behavior (returns existing row without re-writing) and the human restore path. Given the annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, this is a solid additive disclosure, though it says nothing about permissions or the shape of the returned row.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then reasons, then idempotency, then side effect. Three sentences carry a lot of information with little waste, though the second sentence is dense enough (parenthetical reason list + note rule) that it could be split for faster scanning.

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 mutating, non-read-only operation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, idempotency, side effects and reversibility. The main remaining gap is what the response looks like and any authorization requirements, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 riskId, reason and note are already documented at the field level. The description adds the conditional rule that OTHER needs a note and that note is free text, but that constraint is largely mirrored in the schema's own note description, so it does not substantially exceed the structured data.

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 ('Mark ... as dismissed') against a specific resource ('ProjectRisk'), and immediately enumerates the reason vocabulary. No sibling tool in the large list performs dismissal of a risk, so the agent can distinguish this from create_risk/list_risks/analyze_project_risks without opening a 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?

The four reason enums define the conditions under which this tool is the right call (mitigated, not relevant, duplicate, other-with-note), which is clear usage context. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where a risk should be resolved or escalated instead, so no explicit exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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