Dismiss Desktop Install Prompt

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

The description asserts 'Idempotent: a repeat call returns the timestamp of the first dismissal', while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the declared behaviour. Credit is due for disclosing the permission requirement, the confirm=true gate, and side effects ('may share access, notify people or incur provider charges'), but the idempotency claim conflicts with structured metadata.

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 and trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the idempotency note and the permission block. The permission/boilerplate section is somewhat verbose and repeated template text, but nothing is fatally misplaced.

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 with no output schema, the description does cover the trigger, the idempotency claim, required permissions, the confirm gate, and side effects. However the return value is only hinted at in the contradictory idempotency sentence, and the annotation conflict leaves the agent with an unresolved behavioural question.

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%, so both parameters (account, confirm) are already documented in the schema as credential selector and mutation gate. The description restates the confirm=true requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 (marks as dismissed) and a precise resource (the current contact's macOS install-prompt modal), and names the exact UI moment that triggers it ('Wistia is even better on your Mac' modal close). No sibling tool overlaps this behaviour, so an agent can uniquely select it.

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?

Gives clear invocation context ('Called by the SPA when a teammate invited via the Wistia desktop app closes the modal'), which is effectively the when-to-use condition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming any alternative, but no sibling is a plausible substitute, so the gap is minor.

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