triage_dismiss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: dismissing propagates to the underlying entity and sets specific states for bugs and requirements while external items do not propagate. It stops short of stating reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior, but the propagation detail is substantial and genuinely useful.

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 compact and well-structured: one purpose sentence, one side-effect/propagation sentence, and a short Args list. It front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds new information without 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 two-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides the essential operational semantics: arguments, propagation effects, and audit reason. An output schema presumably covers return values, so the main omission is guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but the definition remains adequately 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 description coverage is 0%, and the properties are only titled 'Bug Id' and 'Reason', so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that bug_id is an item id with a concrete example (CB-5) and by specifying reason as a required one-line audit reason, materially clarifying both 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 opening sentence 'Mark a triage item as dismissed' states a specific verb and resource, and the propagation map ('bug → finding not_a_bug; requirement → requirement obsolete; external → no propagation') further defines exact scope. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like triage_promote and mark_integrated without opening their schemas.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as triage_promote or mark_integrated. The propagation rules imply some context, but the description never states when dismissal is appropriate or which sibling should be preferred in other situations.

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