dismiss_proposal

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds the important instance-level behavior: dismissing is not a permanent ban and proposing the identical change later reopens it. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not detail reason handling.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action and effect are front-loaded, and the nuance about reopenability is delivered in a single compact follow-up sentence.

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, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety traits, so the description covers the key behavioral context of dismissing. It is slightly incomplete on what the reason parameter is for, but given the optional default and simple shape this remains minor.

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% and the description never mentions proposal_id or reason, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dismiss an open proposal without executing it,' and immediately distinguishes the operation from execution and from listing by stating the effect on list_proposals. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like apply_proposal.

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?

It conveys that this tool is for dismissing an open proposal rather than executing it, and that the proposal will no longer appear in list_proposals. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as apply_proposal as the alternative, but the intended use context is clear.

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