Dismiss governance issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('dismiss') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. The cryptic 'only proposer only-voter case' adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the cryptic phrase 'only proposer only-voter case' adds confusion without clarity, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's brief but could be more informative.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this is a mutation tool with high complexity. The description is incomplete—it doesn't explain the governance context, what dismissing entails, or return values. It leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'issueId' implicitly via 'issue' but provides no semantics—no explanation of what an issue is, how to obtain issueId, or format constraints. With one undocumented parameter, this adds little value beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('dismiss') and resource ('an issue'), but is vague about what 'only proposer only-voter case' means. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'strato.admin.vote' but not clearly from others like 'strato.admin' which might handle issues broadly. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'only proposer only-voter case' hints at a specific scenario but doesn't explain what that is or when other tools (e.g., 'strato.admin.vote') should be used instead. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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