dismissClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestionDismiss a pending Process Landscape team-assignment suggestion without changing the node's owner (manager+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| suggestionId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not change the node's owner, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the dismissal is reversible, or if any further actions are triggered. For a write operation, more transparency is expected.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without any wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what happens after dismissal (e.g., suggestion removed vs. marked), whether the operation is idempotent (annotation says no), or any prerequisites. More detail would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only hints at their meaning ('node's owner' implies nodeId, 'team-assignment suggestion' implies suggestionId) but does not explicitly define them. The agent would need to infer from context, which is risky.
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 is specific: 'Dismiss a pending Process Landscape team-assignment suggestion without changing the node's owner (manager+).' It clearly states the verb (dismiss), resource (team-assignment suggestion), and scope (pending, owner unchanged), distinguishing it from the sibling 'acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies it's for dismissing a pending suggestion, but does not say 'do not use if the suggestion is already accepted' or 'use acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion instead'. The agent must infer from sibling names, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.