Dismiss Desktop Install Prompt

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

The description explicitly states 'Idempotent: a repeat call returns the timestamp of the first dismissal,' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. This is a direct, consequential contradiction for an agent deciding whether a retry is safe. The permissions and confirm=true context are genuinely useful, but the idempotency conflict is serious.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the idempotency note follows as a discrete claim. The trailing permissions/confirm boilerplate is somewhat verbose but is clearly delimited and relevant to invocation. Overall efficient with minor padding.

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 mutation tool, the safety and permission context is reasonably covered and the return value (first-dismissal timestamp) is disclosed despite no output schema. However, the idempotency contradiction undermines the behavioral picture, and 'the current contact' is unexplained given there is no contact parameter, leaving an invocation gap.

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 100% for both parameters (account, confirm), so the schema already carries full semantic load. The description restates the confirm=true requirement but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Marks the current contact's macOS install-prompt modal as dismissed,' and clarifies the trigger and consequence (the modal never shows again for that contact). No sibling tool overlaps, so an agent can identify this action unambiguously.

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?

It explains the origin context ('Called by the SPA when a teammate invited via the Wistia desktop app closes the modal'), which implies usage, but gives no agent-facing when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The implication is there, but the routing guidance is thin.

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