Dismiss an overview proposal after human review, recording the decision with project, revision, and proposal references.
Human review only. MCP cannot approve its own suggestion; use the application review screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| proposalRef | Yes | ||
| baseRevision | Yes | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a human-review constraint, but it is framed around approval rather than dismissal and does not explain what the dismiss operation changes, what revision checks mean, or what happens on success. With annotations already declaring write/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description still leaves the actual dismissal semantics opaque.
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 text is brief and front-loaded with a constraint, but the second sentence redirects away from the tool rather than explaining how to use it. Brevity here produces under-specification, not efficient guidance.
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 five-parameter write tool with a nested required object and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not cover purpose, preconditions, parameter values, side effects, or expected return behavior.
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 five required parameters, including a nested proposalRef object, are entirely undocumented in the description. The text provides no parameter meaning, format, or dependency information, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 never states that the tool dismisses an overview suggestion or identifies the resource being dismissed; instead it talks about approval and redirects to an application screen. An agent cannot infer what rws_overview_dismiss actually does from this text.
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 only guidance is to use the application review screen, which effectively steers the agent away from this tool. It gives no condition for invoking rws_overview_dismiss and does not distinguish it from siblings like rws_overview_apply, rws_overview_propose, or rws_amendment_dismiss.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.