scf_dismiss_cdm_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation, required editor role, the atomic dismissal of proposal and citations, and the storage of the reason on each. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but for a simple dismissal that is adequate.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, role, and compound effect with zero wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral aspects: the action, role, atomic effect, and reason storage. It does not specify return behavior, but that is not typically required for a dismissal action. Overall complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the reason storage detail is already in the schema description). Baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('control-level CDM proposal'), and clarifies scope ('control-level') which distinguishes it from other proposal-related tools. It also notes the write nature and editor role, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the use case (rejecting a proposal) but does not explicitly reference the sibling scf_accept_cdm_proposal or state when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusion guidance is absent.

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