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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety framing is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the status change is scoped to the issue on that domain and applies across all audits rather than to a single audit instance, and the operation is reversible ('reopen'). It stops short of saying what happens to in-flight audits.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the scoping caveat immediately after. Every clause carries 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, target, and scope. The missing piece is how an agent should source the fingerprint (presumably from get-audit-issues), which would have closed the loop.

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% and the enum for status (open/done) is documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds modest semantic value by explaining that issue_fingerprint identifies the issue across audits, but it does not explain the interaction between domain_id and fingerprint (e.g., whether the same fingerprint can exist on multiple domains).

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+resource pair ('Mark a site health issue done or reopen it') and clarifies the entity model: status lives on the issue on that domain, keyed by fingerprint, spanning audits. That is enough to separate it from read-only siblings like get-audit-issues or get-site-health-summary, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 two enumerated actions (done / reopen) imply when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (where to obtain the issue_fingerprint) or when to prefer this over acknowledging or otherwise handling an issue. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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