reading_dismiss_card

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

Annotations only carry a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary action (dismiss from the inbox) and a key side-effect boundary (does not delete the card), which is useful safety-relevant context. It does not discuss reversibility or persistence details, but for a simple single-parameter action this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the action, the scope, and the non-deletion caveat in minimal wording.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input (a collected card from the inbox) and the result (dismissed, not deleted). It lacks explicit guidance on obtaining the cardId, but sibling tools such as reading_card_inbox and reading_list_cards cover that context.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter refers to a collected reading card from the inbox, but it does not explicitly state where cardId comes from or its expected format. This is modest compensation, not complete.

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 clear verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('collected reading card from the card inbox'), and explicitly distinguishes the action from deletion with 'without deleting it.' This separates it from sibling operations like collect, save, or open.

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?

Provides clear context: this tool is for collected cards currently in the card inbox, and the non-deletion clause signals when not to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the inbox and non-deletion framing make the appropriate use case evident.

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