update_insight_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that dismissal can include a reason and comment, and emphasizes the source restriction. It does not elaborate on side effects or error behavior, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, the additional context is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary usage, followed by constraints and exclusions. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Very concise and well-structured.

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 has a nested object and enumerated statuses, but no output schema. The description covers the main intent, constraints, and usage context sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention what happens after a successful update (e.g., confirmation or return value), but that is not critical given the lack of an output schema.

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%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by linking dismissalDetails to the 'dismissed' status and clarifying that source is fixed to 'public-api' beyond the schema's default. It also reiterates valid statuses in a practical way, helping the agent understand usage context.

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 ('change') and resource ('display status of an existing insight'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly excluding editing title/description and creating (post_insight_result). It also names specific status values, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to change the display status') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use this to edit an insight's title/description or create one'), naming the alternative tool (post_insight_result). It also adds a constraint about source ownership, giving clear context for correct selection.

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