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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: hides pending proposals, stops future recommendations, does not delete activities or message participants, returns existing status for already-converted/ignored proposals, and warns against misreporting.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the requirement and action, though the last sentence is somewhat dense and mixes behavioral guarantees.

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 no output schema and full schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient side-effect, inaction, and status-handling information for correct invocation.

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 already describes both parameters. The description provides no additional syntax or format details, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: hide a pending proposal when the user says it is inappropriate, and stop recommending the pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like accept_dispatch_arrangement and list_organization_proposals.

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?

It says when to use it ('when user explicitly says this is not suitable'), but does not name an alternative such as accepting or generating a new proposal. Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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