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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description clarifies the actual semantics that the annotations cannot: the finding is not deleted, it stays on the run marked ignored, and it stops alerting or failing future runs. It also discloses scope ('on this monitor') and reversibility, which is exactly the context an agent needs before acting.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the undo path, then the precondition. No sentence is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the effect, scope, reversibility and a usage caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (key, runId) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces where the key comes from (get_run warnings[].key) but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (ignore/stop counting) on a specific resource (a finding identified by key from get_run), and explains the exact effect. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling ignore_structure_change / ignore_visual_change tools, which target different object types.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Only do this when the user says the finding is expected') and names the reversal path (unignore_finding). Both when-to-use and how-to-undo are covered with no inference required.

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