dismiss_recommendation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dismissed recommendations won't appear in open potential savings, but does not state if the action is reversible, destructive, or what other side effects occur.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs and practical examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure (Purpose, Args, Examples) is intuitive.

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 tool with 2 parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and parameter usage. The examples further aid understanding. Minor gap: no mention of reversibility.

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?

The 'Args' section explains the source of 'recommendation_id' and the optional nature of 'reason', adding context beyond the schema's type definitions. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 states the verb ('Dismiss') and the resource ('recommendation'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_savings_recommendations' and 'mark_recommendation_acted_on' by specifying the condition 'decided not to act on'.

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 implies when to use based on the decision not to act, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives practical guidance via examples, but lacks a direct comparison to 'mark_recommendation_acted_on'.

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