recommend_dismiss

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 states the tool 'dismisses' a scenario, implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting other recommendations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits like permanence, permissions, or return values. For this complexity level, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data, resulting in a mid-range score.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'scene' as the scenario to dismiss and 'project_path' with a default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of scenarios or context for 'project_path'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('recommendation scenario') with a specific purpose ('so it won't be suggested again'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend' (which suggests) and 'recommend_reset' (which resets dismissals), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what a 'scenario' entails.

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 usage context: 'Use when the user says they don't need a recommendation for a particular area.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like 'recommend_reset' for undoing dismissals or exclusions for when not to use it, keeping it from a perfect score.

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