rws_operation_dismiss

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds two useful non-annotated facts: it is human-actor-only and operates on 'this exact' plan. It does not say what happens to the plan after dismissal or whether the record persists.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The actor restriction comes first, the clarifying constraint second.

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?

A mutation tool with four required, entirely undocumented parameters, a nested object, and no output schema cannot be safely invoked from this description alone. It is silent on revision-mismatch behavior and on the post-dismissal state of the plan.

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% across four required parameters including a nested operationRef and an expectedRevision. The description only gestures at exactness ('this exact operation plan') without explaining expectedRevision's concurrency/optimistic-locking role or what requestId and operationRef must contain.

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?

Specific verb ('dismiss') plus resource ('this exact operation plan') tells the agent exactly what happens. It is distinguishable from rws_operation_approve and rws_operation_propose by name, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Human only' gives a clear actor restriction, and 'Approval never launches it' hints at the contrast with approve. But it never states the alternative tool or the conditions under which dismissal (rather than approval or amendment dismissal) is the right call.

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