Dismiss a cleanup finding

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that dismissals are append-only, future scans hide the finding and report dismissedCount, and the id is a stable hash. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false).

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 three sentences, well-structured with purpose, usage, and behavioral note. It is front-loaded and concise without redundancy.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, and idempotency. It could mention error cases or return values, but overall it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description enhances understanding by explaining the findingId is stable and shown in scans, and that reason is optional. It provides additional context 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 clearly states the tool suppresses a scan_board_cleanup finding without deleting anything, intended for false positives or accepted risks. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling scan tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (false positives or accepted findings) and how it affects future scans. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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