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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: the draft path is not scheduled and publishes nothing, a previously-converted suggestion is left untouched (no-op rather than overwrite), and a user-confirmation step is mandated. It does not describe the response payload, but that is a minor omission given the destructive/idempotent hints are already present.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and its effect, then the alternate mode, then safety. Roughly three sentences with minimal redundancy, though 'A draft is not scheduled and nothing is published' partially restates the draft concept.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers both modes, side effects, idempotent no-op behavior, and a confirmation requirement. The only gap is what 'dismiss' does to the underlying record versus merely hiding it.

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is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the consequence of save_as_draft=true (unpublished draft, unscheduled, nothing published) and implying the default dismiss behavior when omitted. It adds semantic weight beyond the boolean's own text.

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?

States a specific verb (dismiss) and resource (proactive post suggestion) with the resulting effect ('stops appearing'), then immediately clarifies the alternate mode (save_as_draft true → unpublished draft). An agent can distinguish this from create_post or list_post_suggestions without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational context — 'WRITE: confirm the exact suggestion with the user first' — and an exclusion: it will not dismiss a suggestion that was already turned into a post. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use to obtain the suggestion ID or to create a real post instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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