reading_dismiss_card

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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dismissal is not deletion but fails to explain what dismissal entails (e.g., side effects, reversibility, required permissions). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 12-word sentence with no fluff. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on response, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'cardId' parameter. The description implies that the card must be a 'collected reading card' from the inbox, but does not explain how to obtain the ID, its format, or constraints, leaving key semantics ambiguous.

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 'dismiss', the resource 'collected reading card', and the location 'card inbox', distinguishing it from deletion. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'reading_delete_book' and 'reading_save_card' by specifying it does not delete.

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 mentions 'without deleting it' implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reading_delete_book' or provide prerequisites such as whether the card must be collected.

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