notice_dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavioral context: dismissal can be permanent or time-boxed, and a returning cause reappears under a new key. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond the notice lifecycle, but the recurrence nuance is valuable.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance follows immediately. The parenthetical about the 'skip' answer and the recurrence note are both high-value and compact, with no wasted wording.

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 simple dismissal tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage trigger, permanent vs. temporary behavior, and the key lifecycle nuance without needing to repeat schema details or explain return values.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's phrase 'for good, or a number of hours' is consistent with the schema but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb phrase, 'Stop showing one notice', and names the exact resource, making the tool's action unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling notice_list by implying a dismissal rather than a listing operation.

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 gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Use it when the user says they do not want to see a notice'. It also resolves the ambiguous 'skip' answer for unregistered folders. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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