update_vulnerability_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses allowed statuses and their meanings, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or reversibility. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

Concise with front-loaded title and structured sections (功能说明, 状态说明). No unnecessary sentences, though could be further streamlined.

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?

Adequate for a simple status update: describes purpose and allowed statuses. Lacks details on output, error conditions, or prerequisites. Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage it.

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 100%, but description adds value by explaining status meanings (open=fixed, etc.) beyond the schema's simple descriptions. The comment parameter is well-covered by schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates vulnerability processing status for fix tracking, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vulnerabilities or get_vulnerability by focusing on mutation.

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?

Implied usage via 'for vulnerability fix tracking', but no explicit when to use, alternatives, or prerequisites. Siblings include related tools, but no guidance on when to update vs list or scan.

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