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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the consequence of each status (dismissed removes the item from the actionable queue; resolved records resolver and timestamp) and, critically, clarifies that this does NOT apply the suggested fix — routing that to the Marcora web app. It also lists the exact error conditions (invalid status, not found, access denied) and the permission requirement, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Well front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then segmented into when-to-use, status meanings, prerequisites, and errors — easy to scan. There is mild redundancy in that the status meanings are restated in prose and again in the 'Errors' list, but each block targets a different decision (semantics vs. failure modes).

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 mutation with a destructive hint and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything left open: prerequisites, consequences, the non-obvious 'does not apply the fix' boundary, and error taxonomy. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value description is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the status string. The description still adds meaning by defining what each status implies operationally (still open vs. removed from queue vs. records who fixed it), which the schema's terse parentheticals only partly cover. Since there is no formal enum in the schema, the prose enumeration of the three allowed values is genuinely useful.

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 ('Update the status of a Context Intelligence finding') and immediately enumerates the three valid transitions, so an agent knows exactly what changes. It is clearly separable from the read-only siblings get_ci_finding and list_ci_findings, which it cites as the source of the finding.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' section with real user utterances ('dismiss that one', 'mark it handled') and names the prerequisite read tools (list_ci_findings / get_ci_finding). It also states the role prerequisite (admin or editor) and a confirmation rule for destructive decisions, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking.

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