create_system_announcements

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add marginal behavioral context. It states the state-changing action and the endpoint, but does not disclose persistence, response details, or prerequisites; this is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 description is very concise, front-loaded with the actionable purpose, followed by the endpoint and the single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 low complexity: one required parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description covers what, where, and the parameter. It could optionally mention list_system_announcements as the source for hashes, but that is not strictly required for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains hash as 'hash of the announcement to dismiss', giving functional context beyond the schema's bare 'Hash' title. This fully documents the only parameter.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Mark announcement as dismissed' and gives the POST endpoint. It is distinct from list_system_announcements, though the tool name beginning with 'create' is not reconciled with the dismiss action, making sibling differentiation only implicit.

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 intended use is implied by the action statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to list_system_announcements for discovering announcement hashes. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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