Dream Action

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

Annotations already declare that this is non-read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: approved domain service dispatch, immutable receipts, call-time gates, and D6 protection checks. Some jargon remains unexplained, but it materially improves the agent's understanding of the execution path.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by behavioral context. The second sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy, but no major padding or repetition is present.

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?

Given the presence of annotations, a full input schema description, and an output schema, the definition is largely complete for calling the tool. It still omits detailed guidance on valid action values and gate conditions, which would help for a multi-action dispatcher, but the essentials are covered.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds examples for the 'action' parameter but does not clarify required action values, the role of item_id/payload/project_key, or how those relate to specific action types, so it provides only modest extra value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Execute an explicit Dream Workspace user action,' and gives concrete action examples (Idea accept, Feed save, Mute, Confirm Principle). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling proposal/mutation tools such as propose_write or propose_todo_mutation.

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 word 'explicit' implies this is for already-approved user actions, but the description does not state when to use it versus propose_write or other mutation siblings, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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