Dismiss an insight

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: required scopes (insights:write, luca:draft), data sensitivity, the workspace-override mechanism, and the idempotency-key requirement with server-generated fallback for safe retries. It still doesn't say whether a dismissed insight can be un-dismissed or what happens to it afterwards.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact operation/scope/idempotency/workspace block. Every line is short and earns its place, though the 'Luca operation' and scope lines read as generated boilerplate rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation, its auth requirements, retry semantics, and workspace scoping. The remaining gap is the absence of reversibility/state-effect information for a destructive operation and no contrast against sibling insight actions.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the load, but the description adds real semantics: it explains that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace, and that omitting idempotencyKey causes the server to generate one — behavior the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Dismiss one insight') and adds the intent ('the coach does not want to act on'). It partially distinguishes itself from the sibling luca_insights_unread_count, but it never contrasts with the closer siblings luca_insights_mark_read and luca_insights_mark_actioned, so an agent still has to infer which of those three to pick.

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 line 'Use this rather than leaving it unread forever' gives an implied usage condition, which is more than nothing. However, with mark_read and mark_actioned as direct siblings on the same insight entity, the description gives no rule for choosing dismiss over those alternatives — exactly the ambiguity this field should resolve.

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