dismiss_skill_proposal

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses what each reason does downstream: suppression windows of 90 days, 30 days, indefinite until cleared in the Agent Inbox, and none for duplicate. It also states irreversibility ('can't be reopened'), the optimistic-concurrency refusal behavior ('A newer revision is refused with current_revision'), and repeat-call stability, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose and consequences come first, usage guidance second, args last. It is somewhat long, and the indented multi-line Args block repeats parameter names already in the schema, but each line adds non-redundant meaning.

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 destructive, four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond flags, the description covers irreversibility, per-reason side effects, concurrency, idempotency, and every parameter's origin and constraints. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 must carry the load, and it does: proposal_id is sourced from list_skill_proposals with a prp_ prefix, expected_revision is defined as the last-read revision with a named failure mode, reason values are enumerated and semantically explained, and note is capped at 500 characters. Only the exact shape of the current_revision error payload is left implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Dismiss an open skill proposal with a reason', and makes the scope explicit ('an open proposal'). An agent can immediately tell this is the terminal reject path, distinct from approve_skill_proposal and from the read tools get_skill_proposal/list_skill_proposals.

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 states when to invoke ('Use when the user asks to dismiss, reject or skip a proposal') and supplies per-value guidance that routes the reason choice: wrong for 90 days, not_now for 30 days, never_for_this_skill until cleared, duplicate not at all. The only gap is that it never explicitly excludes an alternative such as approving or leaving the proposal open.

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