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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the operation marks the document as dismissed and leaves stored data/artifacts untouched, which is important given destructiveHint=true. It doesn't fully describe side effects like whether the dismissal is reversible, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the usage condition, and the non-delete clarification. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear purpose and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the dismissal can be undone, but the core context needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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% and the only parameter (document_id) is already described in the schema. The description doesn't add extra parameter-level detail, but with a single well-documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Hide a failed, rejected, or cancelled document from future list_statements results') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from a delete operation, which is important given the sibling tools and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('only when the user asks to clear a terminal failed/rejected/cancelled conversion from their history') and what it is not ('This is not a delete'). This gives clear guidance for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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