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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: login is required, skipping may trigger platform LLM staffing, and there is no persistent deduplication key. It explains the destructive nature by saying the step's unaccepted suggestion is terminated and later steps are advanced, consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information: trigger condition, effect, side effect, retry guidance, and verification path. The content is front-loaded with the login requirement and usage condition, with no filler.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and a destructive mutation, the description covers the important operational concerns: when to act, what changes, what may be triggered, how to handle ambiguity, and how to verify. Enough is provided for an agent to call the tool safely.

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?

The only parameter, stepId, is not described at all in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'this step' is too generic to explain where stepId comes from, what identifiers are valid, or how it maps to a dispatch step.

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 a specific verb and resource: skip a dispatch step when the user explicitly says they will handle it themselves or no longer need it. It also explains the effect: ending the unaccepted suggestion and advancing subsequent steps, which distinguishes it from accept/decline dispatch actions.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: only when the user clearly indicates they will handle the step themselves or no longer need it. It also provides cautionary guidance: after an unclear result or timeout, query current state first, do not auto-retry, and use get_my_dispatch to verify.

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