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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'opens' a finding, implying a state change, and mentions optional linkage. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether this creates a report, updates an existing one, or requires specific permissions. The idempotentHint=true is consistent with the idempotencyKey parameter, so no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. It is concise and readable, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the parameter list.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the main purpose and several parameters but doesn't explain the relationship to reports, the meaning of 'canonical finding', or the role of sessionId/executionId. The idempotencyKey is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, which is a notable gap for a tool with idempotentHint=true.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names title, notes, severity, linkedNodeIds, and reportId, which covers 5 of 9 parameters. It omits projectId, idempotencyKey, sessionId, and executionId, though idempotencyKey is self-explanatory and projectId is common. The description adds some meaning (e.g., 'canonical finding', 'optionally linked to reportId') but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a canonical finding in Reports'), and mentions optional linkage to reportId. It distinguishes from generic create_report by specifying 'canonical finding' and 'bug' context, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies usage context (creating a bug report in Reports) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives like queue_report_bug or create_finding, which appear in the sibling list and could be confused with this tool.

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