slipbox_dismiss_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and effects. It clearly states the action is 'permanently' applied and scoped to maintenance suggestions, which indicates irreversibility. It could go further by clarifying that no notes are deleted, but the permanence and scope are sufficiently conveyed.

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 states the core purpose in the first sentence, gives a short usage rationale, and includes a minimal Args section with an example. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema present, so return-value details are unnecessary. The description covers purpose, usage timing, permanence, and parameter example. A small gap is that it does not tell the user how to discover cluster IDs, but that is likely covered by sibling tools like get_cluster_report.

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 cluster_id, so the description must compensate. It adds a concrete example ('poetry-craft-revision') and identifies the parameter as a cluster ID, but beyond that it mostly restates the parameter name. For a single simple string parameter, this is adequate but not enriching.

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 ('dismiss') with a clear resource ('cluster') and scope ('from maintenance suggestions'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_structure_from_cluster by positioning it as the 'don't remind me' action.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after a cluster has been reviewed and determined not to need a structure note, or when the user doesn't want reminders. It provides clear context but does not name or exclude specific alternative tools.

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