dismiss_discussion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses bulk side effects (closes every greeting queued behind the current one, reported via closed_count), a stopping condition ('stopping at a screen that needs an answer'), and the shape of the pending-answer response (still_pending, next, gate). It does not say whether dismissing carries diplomatic consequences (relationship/attitude penalties), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and alternative, and every sentence carries information. It reads as one dense paragraph with jargon ('the gate it raises', 'discussion() read needed') that costs some readability, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by documenting side effects and the fields returned in the multi-leader case (still_pending, next, gate), including the guidance that no discussion() read is needed afterward. For a zero-parameter tool this is complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition and no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

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 action ('leave an AI leader's negotiation/demand/trade-offer screen without agreeing') with a clear scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the trade-handling siblings by naming incoming_deal + refuse_deal. An agent can separate this from discussion/respond_discussion/incoming_deal without opening any schema.

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 an explicit routing rule ('For a trade already on the table, prefer incoming_deal + refuse_deal') plus the second use case (plain leader greetings, including queued ones). It also tells the agent what to do next when another leader is pending, so the when-to-use decision is fully specified.

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