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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the effect is persistent across future scans and scoped to this site, and the action is undoable (in the app). It doesn't state auth/permission requirements, but the suppression semantics and reversibility are valuable disclosures.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core effect followed by the safety constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistent effect, scope, reversibility, and the critical when-not-to-use guard. Nothing essential for 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 description coverage is 100%, so scan_id and finding_name are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no per-parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Mark a finding as a false positive for this site') and the concrete consequence ('future scans of it stop reporting it'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_report or scan_url.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ONLY use this after the user has confirmed the finding is wrong') and when-not ('never dismiss a real problem to improve a grade'). It also anchors the behavior to the equivalent in-app action.

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