hints_dismiss_nudge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: dismissals are scoped to today and a nudge type can be marked as sent. However, it does not explain whether the action is reversible, how persistent the dismissal is, or what side effects occur beyond the state change.

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 sentence with no filler. The key distinction between dismissing for today and marking a specific type as sent is front-loaded, and the sentence is easy to scan.

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 optional-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but it never connects the 'type' parameter to the two described modes or explains when to use 'all' versus a specific type. With no output schema, return behavior is also unspecified, though the low complexity limits the impact of these gaps.

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% and the only parameter has an enum, so the description needed to clarify how 'type' selects behavior. It only says 'specific nudge type', leaving the mapping of enum values (dayStart, idle, lowMcp, closeLoop, all) and the 'all' default to the schema. It does add the high-level behavioral distinction, which gives partial credit.

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 specific verbs ('Dismiss', 'mark') and identifies the resource ('nudges'), including the two main modes: dismissal for today and marking a specific nudge type as sent. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like hints_get_context and hints_record_event, which describe different operations. The slight ambiguity is whether 'for today' and 'specific nudge type' correspond to specific enum values, but the overall purpose is clear.

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 says what the tool does, but it does not state when to use it, when not to use it, or how it compares with alternatives. There is no guidance about choosing 'all' versus a specific nudge type, nor any mention of prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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