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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses server-side storage of the raw report, parsing, dedupe-by-bug-hash, insertion of new SECURITY bugs, and the critical state boundary that it does NOT mark the scan COMPLETED. This side-effect and idempotency detail is exactly what an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then parameters, then backend behavior and the completion caveat. No wasted words.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, dedupe semantics, and the workflow boundary thoroughly. It could still note auth/permission requirements or what the call returns, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps both params to CLI flags (--id and --report-file <path>) and clarifies reportFile is a path, but the meaning of id (the scan identifier) is left to inference from context rather than stated.

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 (upload), resource (Semgrep CLI JSON report), and scan type (SAST security scan). The 'SAST' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling report-dast-findings, report-deps-findings, and report-secrets-findings tools.

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?

Provides strong workflow context by naming the downstream step: the SAST playbook calls update-scan-progress COMPLETED after this, so the agent knows where this fits. It does not, however, explicitly state when to choose it over the other report-*-findings siblings beyond the implicit SAST scope.

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