dismiss_suggestion

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 reveals that the tool increments a dismiss count and that suggestions dismissed 3+ times are permanently suppressed. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'dismiss' action, though it doesn't detail all side effects or authorization needs.

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 consists of two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but lacks information about the return value or what happens after dismissal (e.g., does the suggestion disappear from the list?). The description is adequate but could be more complete by explaining the state change or providing more context about the suppression mechanism.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter's meaning and format. The description adds a concrete example ('ts-a1b2c3d4') and mentions it comes from a 'suggested_threads list', which provides helpful context but does not significantly augment the schema's description. 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') and the resource ('a suggested thread'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'promote_suggestion' by implying it is the opposite action. The mention of incrementing dismiss count and permanent suppression after 3 times adds specificity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., 'promote_suggestion', 'resolve_thread') might be more appropriate in different contexts. 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.