cantrip_review_dismiss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains what happens to dismissed entities (kept for history), clarifies that escalations close without resolving, and mentions the filesystem context for the project parameter. It doesn't cover error conditions or response format, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: first states core purpose, second explains two distinct use cases, third provides important parameter context. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and its behavioral implications. It explains the two distinct use cases and provides important context about the project parameter. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but otherwise it's quite complete.

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%, providing solid baseline documentation for both parameters. The description adds useful context about the 'project' parameter overriding '.cantrip.json' and being required in cloud-hosted/multi-project contexts, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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' and specifies two distinct resources: 'inferred entity' and 'open escalation'. It differentiates from siblings like cantrip_review_accept, cantrip_review_reject, and cantrip_review_resolve by explaining what dismissal does NOT do (not accepting/rejecting entities, not resolving escalations).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to remove items from review queues without accepting/rejecting (entities) or closing without resolving (escalations). It mentions the 'project' parameter override use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare to alternatives like cantrip_review_accept or cantrip_review_resolve.

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