dismiss_planner_item

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world), so the description carries the meaningful semantics: the item is hidden from 'what's on my plate' rather than completed, and the effect is private to the user. It omits reversibility — whether a dismissed item can be restored.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: definition, then effect, then use case. Slight redundancy in restating 'planner view' and 'what's on my plate' but nothing wasteful.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a state-changing tool with two undocumented required parameters and no note on reversibility, the definition has a clear remaining gap.

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% for both required parameters. plannable_type is a bare string with no enum, and the description never states what type values are accepted (assignment, quiz, etc.) or how plannable_id relates to plannable_type, leaving the agent to guess the accepted vocabulary.

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 and resource ('Dismiss a planner item from the user's planner view') and immediately scopes it as private. The clause 'without marking it complete' explicitly separates it from the sibling mark_planner_item_complete.

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 a clear use case ('items the user has decided they don't need to do, e.g. optional revisions') and implicitly routes away from mark_planner_item_complete. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a stated way to undo a dismissal.

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