Dismiss assistant proposals

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that nothing in the project changes and that omitting changeIds dismisses every still-proposed change.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It communicates the core action and the key default behavior efficiently.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and rich annotations, the description covers the essential action and non-impact on the project. It omits explicit routing between assistant tools, but otherwise provides enough context 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the default behavior for changeIds but does not add notably deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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?

It uses a specific verb and resource: mark assistant-proposed changes as dismissed. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling apply_assistant_changes tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 use through wording like 'dismiss' and clarifies that omitting changeIds dismisses all still-proposed changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of apply_assistant_changes or other assistant-related tools.

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