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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation nature and a state machine (playbook drives COMPLETED/EXCEPTION), which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to a scan on an invalid transition.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose and enum come first, followed by operational context. The final sentence is dense but every clause carries the lifecycle information an agent needs.

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 state-update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential status semantics and workflow. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around the 'id' parameter and error/transition behavior.

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 schema offers only raw types and an enum. The description re-lists the enum values (already in the schema) but does add real semantic guidance on which status to set and when, which is meaningfully beyond the bare enum. The 'id' parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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 and resource ('Update a scan's status'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many other update-* siblings that touch issues, plan items, and project-init status. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can route to it correctly.

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?

Gives concrete lifecycle guidance: 'Call IN_PROGRESS when starting' and explains that the category playbook sets COMPLETED after a successful report-*-findings, or EXCEPTION on hard failure. This tells the agent when each status applies, though it never states explicit when-not-to-use conditions or names an alternative tool.

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