dismiss_backlog_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Dismiss', which implies a mutation but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the item is removed, marked, or recoverable), permissions, or any consequences. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and the target category, earning every word. Perfectly concise.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema) and the description provides enough purpose and selection guidance for basic invocation. However, the absence of annotations and the lack of detail about the dismissal behavior leave gaps regarding side effects and post-condition state, making it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' having a clear description ('Backlog item ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Dismiss a backlog item') and adds a specific scope ('not actionable or duplicate'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_backlog_item or process_backlog_item. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'not actionable or duplicate' implies when to use this tool—for items that are neither actionable nor duplicates. It gives a selection criterion but does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives like resolve_backlog_item. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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