dismissInsight

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the durable event append, the terminal 'dismissed' state, removal from hot recall, no re-promotion by access, and survival across rebuilds. What is missing is idempotency behavior (dismissing an already-dismissed insight) and any permission/scope authorization requirements for the mutation.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the state effects and the contrasting non-use case. Every sentence carries information, though the identification-format sentence partially duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

For a mutation tool with empty annotations, the description covers lifecycle effects, durability, and visibility consequences, and an output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained. The remaining hole is operational detail: error behavior for unknown or already-dismissed uids, and what 'scopes' resolution means for lookup failures.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the name formats. The description repeats the 'insights/{uid} or a bare uid' identification guidance and says nothing about 'reason' or 'scopes', so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (synthesized insight) and immediately fences off the closest conceptual neighbor: 'This is NOT a decay/demotion (which the system does on its own)'. An agent can distinguish this from system-driven insight lifecycle handling without consulting any other tool.

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 states a clear trigger condition ('the user judges wrong or unhelpful') and explicitly excludes the system-managed decay case, which is the main ambiguity risk. It also tells the agent where to obtain the identifier (a listInsights / recall hit's name). It does not name a preferred alternative tool for other cases, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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