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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is reversible and requires the API key. It also clarifies that dismiss affects only 'YOUR active feed', which is useful behavioral scope beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the restore option is explained, and the reversibility/auth note is concise and useful.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, scope, restore behavior, reversibility, and auth requirement. It does not specify return values or pagination, but those are not necessary here.

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 schema already documents grant_id as a UUID and dismissed as 'true = dismiss, false = restore'. The description repeats the dismissed=false mapping but does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource (a grant in 'YOUR active feed'), and also covers the restore behavior with 'dismissed=false'. It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like search_grants or save_grant, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: use this tool to dismiss or restore a grant in your own active feed. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or reference an alternative tool, but the intended use case is evident from the phrasing.

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