Mark a recalled record as irrelevant

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the consequential behavior: the record will never be recalled for that query againhare and its fuzzy matches are damped. This is important side-effect information that is not present in the schema or annotations. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it begins with purpose, then gives the key usage constraint, and finishes with the alternative tool. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 the tool's simple parameter surface and the availability of annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and the key sibling alternative. It does not describe return values, but this is not critical for invocation and the description is otherwise complete enough.

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 schema already documents `id`, `problem`, and `signals`, but the description adds important semantics: the problem/signals should be the exact ones from the original queryatching contextBuf, and this is feedback about matching, not about fixing. This meaningfully clarifies how to fill in the parameters.

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 tool's action: it is feedback for dismissing a recalled record that was surfaced for a problem it does not apply to. It also differentiates from the sibling tool `reinforce`, which is explicitly called out as the alternative when a fix was applied and failed.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to: use it when the record is irrelevant to the query, and use `reinforce` instead when a fix was applied but failed. It also instructs the caller to pass the same problem/signals that were used in the query.

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