briefing_stock_alert_dismiss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and usage examples, but omits whether the dismissal is permanent, requires ownership, or what result is returned. This lack of detail is risky for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and includes practical user examples. It is concise with zero redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to understand purpose and when to trigger. However, it lacks information about return values or error cases, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% with descriptions for both 'alert_ids' (list of alert IDs to close) and 'token' (user token or username). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema—it simply restates the action that maps to alert_ids.

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 explicitly states '关闭一条或多条预警' (close one or more alerts), identifying both the action and resource. It clearly distinguishes this dismiss tool from sibling alert operations like set, update, list, and trigger.

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 provides concrete trigger examples ('第 3 条关了吧', '关掉那个预警') and instructs to invoke when the user expresses such intents. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the examples give clear contextual guidance.

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