discard_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence (never re-surfaced), but does not clarify whether the match is deleted, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The core action is clear, but with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the description leaves the agent to infer that finding_id identifies the match. The optional reason parameter is unexplained. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage and the description mentions none of the parameters (finding_id, reason). It does not explain what to pass, making parameter semantics weak.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'discard' with resource 'match' and adds irreversible consequence 'never be re-surfaced', clearly distinguishing it from sibling approve_match, list_matches, and get_match.

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 phrase 'human decision' implies it's for human-in-the-loop scenarios and the permanence ('never be re-surfaced') clarifies it's for final rejection, but no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use is stated.

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