ecp_resource_status_dismiss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, scope (e.g., current user vs global), idempotency, or any authentication requirements. For a state-changing action, this is a notable 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. No fluff, easy to parse. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it omits essential parameter 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?

With no output schema indicator, no annotations, and a single parameter whose acceptable values are undocumented, the agent cannot reliably construct a valid call. The description is complete about the action but incomplete about the required inputs.

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?

The single required parameter 'resource_type' has 0% schema description coverage and no enums. The description never explains what values are valid (e.g., 'mongo', 'mysql', 'nginx') or how it influences which banner is dismissed. The agent is left guessing at the parameter's domain.

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 (dismiss) and a clear object (resource-status warning banner), and the action is distinct among the sibling list (no other tool mentions dismissing a banner). It's unambiguous about what the 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what triggers a resource-status banner. The only implicit context is that it dismisses a banner, which is closer to purpose than usage guidance.

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