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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true already declared, the description still earns credit by adding the auth requirement ('Requires the write scope') and the downstream consequence that a dismissal influences later assessments of the same agent. It does not say whether a closed finding can be reopened or what happens when closing an already-closed finding, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler, and the core action plus its precondition are front-loaded before the parameter rules. Every clause adds new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the prerequisites, side effects, and the conditional parameter rule. What remains thin is the lifecycle context: reversibility of a close and how this differs from retract_non_issue.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains the status values, the mandatory explanation with a 1-4000 character bound, and that reason_code is a category required only for dismissals. finding_id is left unexplained but is self-evident from the resource.

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 and resource ('Close a finding') plus the two terminal states it can set ('fixed', 'dismissed'), so the operation is unambiguous. The distinction between resolved and not-a-real-issue maps directly onto the enum values in the 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?

'Close a finding once you have resolved it' gives a clear precondition, and the description tells the agent which status to choose for a non-issue. However, it never names the related siblings (validate_fix, retract_non_issue) that a confused agent might reach for instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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