dismiss_revision

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes meaningfully beyond them by scoping the destruction ('deletes the revision row; the original memory is unchanged'), stating the failure mode when the precondition is unmet, and disclosing a transport restriction. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and are not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the error condition and the transport caveat. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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 one required string parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers effect, precondition, failure mode, and availability. It does not say where target_source_id values come from (e.g., list_pending_revisions), the one small gap preventing a 5.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only refers to 'that target' without adding format, sourcing, or identifier-resolution detail, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('pending memory revision'), and immediately clarifies the exact effect ('Deletes the revision row; the original memory is unchanged'), which cleanly separates it from accept_revision and forget. An agent can pick this over sibling revision tools 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?

Implies the precondition clearly ('pending memory revision ... for that target') and adds an explicit error condition when no pending revision exists, plus a transport-level exclusion (local stdio only). It does not name the complementary siblings (accept_revision, reject_refinement) that an agent would weigh against this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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