dismiss_object_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool dismisses review state and accepts as-is, but omits important details such as whether the action is destructive, if it requires special permissions, or any side effects. For a state-changing mutation, this is insufficient.

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, very concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose. However, the description could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose, e.g., clarifying the outcome or permissions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic action but lacks completeness in behavioral context. It does not explain what happens after dismissal or whether it can be reverted, which is important for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with a description). The description adds 'Takes no body beyond the object_id', which restates the schema's implication that only object_id is needed. This adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'dismiss' and the resource 'review state on an object', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like select_object_frames. It specifies the action 'accepting it as-is without selecting specific frames', which is unique among object-related tools.

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 implies when to use (when dismissing review without selecting frames) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Among siblings, select_object_frames is a related alternative, but this is not mentioned.

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