fx_alert_dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core behavior clearly, but does not disclose edge-case behavior, such as what happens if no dialog is open, or any side effects beyond dismissing the dialog.

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 extremely concise with no filler. The action-target structure is immediately readable and every word contributes 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 parameterless action with no output schema, this is largely complete: the action and target are clearly identified. It only lacks a note on the precondition that a native dialog must currently be open and how the tool handles its absence.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is strong. The description adds useful context by identifying 'the open native dialog' as the implicit operand the tool acts on.

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 clearly names the action (dismiss/cancel) and the target (the open native dialog). This distinguishes it from sibling fx_alert_accept, as cancel is the opposite of accept.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when an open native dialog should be cancelled rather than accepted. However, there is no explicit guidance about checking dialog state first via fx_alert_state or when to prefer fx_alert_accept.

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