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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status transition from OPEN to MUTED and the suppression effect, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as reversibility, idempotency, or permission requirements, which would be expected for a mutating operation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and its outcome.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and effect. It lacks some contextual detail (e.g., behavior when finding is not open), but the overall picture is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter (findingId) with 100% coverage: 'The finding ID to mute'. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific details beyond the implicit requirement that the finding must be open, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Mute an open finding'), the resource (finding), and the intended effect (suppress from dashboards and alerts, status changes to MUTED). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_finding, list_findings, and create_muting_rule.

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 provides clear context: only open findings should be muted, and the purpose is to suppress from dashboards and alerts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for broader muting rules), but the 'open' condition and outcome give enough situational guidance.

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