dismiss_recommendation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'NOT live-verified', 'Fakes only', and 'same 607 gate', which reveal that this is a non-production, test-only action with a specific access constraint. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond the tool's name, though the exact nature of the 607 gate is not explained.

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 terse, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and caveats following. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and is front-loaded, containing no redundant 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral caveats (draft, not live, fakes only) and references a shared gate. However, it does not explain what 'draft' implies (e.g., does it create a draft object? what happens after?), nor the meaning of '607 gate' or 'Fakes only'. These gaps leave an agent uncertain about the full execution context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'recommendation_id' parameter at all. It only references 'a recommendation' generically, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Recommendation Id' label. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, it fails to do so.

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 clear action ('Draft dismissing an MS recommendation') and differentiates it from siblings like apply_recommendation by noting it drafts a dismissal rather than applying one. However, 'MS' is not expanded and 'Fakes only' introduces ambiguity about the intended scope, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 mentions 'same 607 gate as apply_recommendation', implying a shared prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_recommendation). It hints at similarity but lacks clear guidance on selecting between drafting versus applying, and no when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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