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

Annotations already establish that the operation is a write, is idempotent, and is non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. However, it only adds the vague qualifier 'privacy-filtered project metadata' and does not disclose what state changes, whether an existing dismissal is replaced, or how idempotency and optimistic concurrency are handled.

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 short and has no filler, but the brevity is closer to under-specification than to efficient clarity. The entire meaning is compressed into an ambiguous noun phrase and a vague qualifier.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested details object, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It fails to explain the return value, error conditions, concurrency expectations, or the meaning of 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 needed to explain parameters such as handoffId, idempotencyKey, and expectedVersion, but it mentions no parameter by name. 'Privacy-filtered project metadata' only loosely gestures at the payload and does not clarify the role of nested details, status, summary, or referenceIds.

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 uses 'Update' as a verb and names 'hosted relay dismiss' as a target, but that noun phrase is domain jargon and never explained. It does not say what a dismiss is, what the update changes, or what outcome it produces, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like relay_accept, relay_release, or relay_mark_sent.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool rather than relay_accept, relay_release, relay_poll, or relay_mark_sent. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context triggers, so an agent would have to guess based only on the tool name.

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