rws_amendment_dismiss

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the action is human-only and preserves proposal history rather than applying the patch. It still does not explain concurrency or request semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and follow-up effect, with no wasted wording. The essential distinction from apply is included efficiently.

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 tool has a nested required object, four fully required parameters with no schema descriptions, and no output schema. While annotations cover safety traits, the description is too sparse to compensate for missing parameter semantics and does not explain what is returned or what expectedRevision guards against.

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%, and there are four required parameters including a nested amendmentRef. The description only vaguely implies amendmentRef and expectedRevision via 'exact pending amendment'; it says nothing about requestId, projectId, expectedRevision concurrency semantics, or the nested reference structure.

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 (dismiss an amendment) with clear scope (exact, pending), and distinguishes it from apply by saying the patch is not applied. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from related siblings.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: human-only dismissal of a pending amendment, preserving history without applying the patch. This implicitly contrasts with apply, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or explain prerequisites such as what 'pending' means operationally.

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