editor_dismiss_blocking_dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for explaining side effects. It states the tool clicks a button, but does not disclose that clicking buttons like 'OK' or 'Replace' may accept destructive actions, whether the click is reversible, what happens if the dialog is not actually visible, or how dry_run behaves. For a UI-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful safety gap.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the KB pointer and placeholder example add marginal value and are not sufficiently informative. The example demonstrates the call shape but uses 'Example' as the button text, which is more confusing than helpful.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, a four-parameter tool with no annotations needs stronger guidance about invocation prerequisites, filtering behavior, and failure modes. An agent cannot confidently decide what title_contains or process_name_contains should be set to, or when dry_run should be used. The KB reference is vague and not a substitute for inline guidance.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It adds some value by giving possible values for button_text ('Yes, OK, Replace, Cancel'), but it never explains title_contains, process_name_contains, or dry_run. The example uses the literal placeholder 'Example', which is not a realistic button and could mislead an agent.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Click'), a specific resource ('a named button on a visible Unreal/Windows dialog'), and gives concrete examples ('Yes, OK, Replace, or Cancel'). This distinguishes it from siblings like editor_list_blocking_dialogs, which lists dialogs rather than interacting with them.

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 phrase 'on a visible Unreal/Windows dialog' implies when the tool is useful, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus listing dialogs first with editor_list_blocking_dialogs. There is no stated exclusion such as 'do not use if no dialog is visible' or 'use after listing to identify the correct title/process'.

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