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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: ignored findings persist across future scans, can be reopened by a person, and changes only Loomaly's work item, never the website. This meaningfully expands what the agent can infer about side effects and reversibility.

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 sentences cover action, parameter combinations, consequences, persistence, reversibility, and permission scope with no filler. The opening sentence front-loads the core operation and invocation patterns, making the definition highly efficient to parse.

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?

The description is complete for a mutation tool with no output schema: it specifies all invocation shapes, required intent, persistence behavior, reversibility, and permission scope. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and understand its side effects.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the parameter meaning. It explains how findingId, ruleId, pathTemplate, sampleUrl, and allPages combine into three valid invocation modes, which is beyond what the schema provides. It does not explicitly explain siteId or reason, but their roles are reasonably inferable from context.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Mark') and clearly names the resource being acted on: a single finding, a group, or a whole rule, with the exact parameter combinations for each. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related actions like fixing or rescanning.

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 makes clear this is for issues that are 'not a problem' and explains the consequences (leaving the fix-first queue and health score). It provides solid context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, stopping short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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