ride_carpool_dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short. '(dry-run)' gestures at a non-mutating mode but never states what actually happens to the offer, whether state changes, or what the 'confirm' flag does. Permission requirements and side effects are entirely undisclosed.

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 single phrase is compact but under-specified rather than concise — brevity here is a symptom of missing information, not editorial discipline. The '(dry-run)' parenthetical also reads as an afterthought rather than a front-loaded key fact.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters mean the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without knowing how 'confirm' and 'token' relate to the dry-run semantics.

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 0% across three parameters (token, confirm, offer_id), so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'offer' loosely hints at offer_id; 'token' (an auth credential?) and 'confirm' (which likely interacts with the dry-run behavior) are left with no meaning added.

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 states a verb+resource ('Dismiss carpool offer'), which is clearer than a bare name. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling 'ride_carpool_reject' — 'dismiss' and 'reject' are near-synonyms, so an agent cannot tell which to pick. The parenthetical '(dry-run)' further muddies the purpose rather than refining it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ride_carpool_accept or ride_carpool_reject, nor any stated precondition. The only hint, '(dry-run)', is unexplained and could be read either as a mode or as a no-op preview, leaving the agent to guess.

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