sofa_dismiss_attention

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does say the item will not be shown again, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, what happens to the underlying item, or whether the dismiss can be undone.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that conveys both the action and the intended condition for use. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one required parameter and no complex output, the description gives enough information for an agent to call it correctly. It would be more complete with a note about reversibility or ‘idempotency’, but those are minor gaps for this simple action.

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 schema already documents item_id as an 'attention item id' and has 100% coverage. The description adds no further guidance about the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('dismiss') and resource ('attention feed item'), and clarifies why it is done: the item is not useful enough to show again. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sofa_attention, which likely displays the feed.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when an attention item is not useful enough to be shown again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is sufficiently clear for a single-purpose dismiss action.

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