dismiss_regression_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether dismissal is reversible, whether it suppresses one alert or all alerts for the version, or what permissions/tier are needed. The remaining text is a licensing upsell and pricing URL that describes Kiln Pro features, not this tool's behavior.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the following three lines are marketing copy about textures, calibration, and a pricing URL that do not help invoke the tool. Roughly three-quarters of the description is off-topic noise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two completely undocumented parameters, the description should explain parameter roles and the effect of dismissal. It instead spends its remaining space on a subscription pitch, so an agent cannot determine correct invocation from it.

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 description never mentions version_id or previous_version_id. The single required parameter is undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to guess whether previous_version_id scopes the dismissal or identifies the comparison that produced the alert.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: marking a regression alert as dismissed, plus the observable effect ('so it stops surfacing'). It does not name the sibling it complements (get_regression_alerts / check_design_regression), so an agent must infer the workflow, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_regression_alerts for viewing alerts before dismissing them. The only contextual hint is the consequence clause 'so it stops surfacing', which implies post-review use but never says so.

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