Dismiss a sticky

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explicitly disclosing that this is a soft-delete (not a hard delete), that it marks the item as dismissed, and that dismissed stickies are no longer read back. It could add idempotency or permission details, but the key behavioral trait is clearly communicated.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys both the action and its consequence.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the outcome. It does not discuss reversal or error behavior, but given the low complexity and schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and optional reason), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('soft-delete') with a specific resource ('a sticky by id') and explains the effect ('marks it dismissed; it is no longer read back'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stickies_read and stickies_write.

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 the tool (when a sticky should no longer be read back) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using stickies_write for other mutations, so guidance is only implied.

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