Ignore suggestion

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the burden of revealing additional behavior. It explains that ignoring counts toward frequency learning and that repeated ignores auto-silence that type, which is valuable context beyond idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and behavioral details in parentheses. No wasted words.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and idempotency annotation, the description covers the tool's effect and learning behavior. It does not mention potential error cases or preconditions, but these are minor for a simple ignore action.

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% and the parameter description already clarifies the source of the ID. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Ignore') and resource ('suggestion'), and the parenthetical adds behavior that distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_accept and suggest_now. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to ignore a suggestion) but does not explicitly contrast it with suggest_accept or state conditions for choosing it over alternatives. There is no when-not guidance, leaving some room for inference.

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