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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the lifecycle semantics: which actor sets which status and what event triggers COMPLETED vs EXCEPTION. It does not mention permission requirements or what the response looks like, but the state-machine context is genuinely useful beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and valid values before the lifecycle detail. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating the enum values that the schema already enforces.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state machine and trigger events well, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with five parameters and unclear identifier semantics, an agent still lacks guidance on how to identify the scan being updated, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 only 40%, so the description must carry more weight. It enumerates the status values, but that largely repeats the enum already present in the schema, and it says nothing about the two ambiguous identifier fields (id vs scanId), which of them the call actually needs, or that only status is required. The botId/projectApiKey auth context is documented in the schema, not the description.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (a scan's status), so an agent immediately knows this is a state-transition tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling mutation tools like report-scan-findings or update-project-init-status, but the lifecycle framing makes its role reasonably distinct.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Call IN_PROGRESS when starting' and 'the category playbook sets COMPLETED after a successful report-scan-findings (or EXCEPTION on hard failure)'. That clarifies the sequencing relative to report-scan-findings. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or what an agent should do if a scan is already terminal.

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