post_w_asset_suppress_vulnerability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only reveals an HTTP method and a URL. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, what will be modified, or error cases. For a POST operation, this missing behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint call, and the parameter placement guidance is compact. The awkward 'suppres' typo and the failure to clearly phrase the action reduce polish, but there is very little fluff.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input schema is generic and the description does not explain what values the body/query actually accept. With no annotations and four fully untyped parameters, the description is only a shallow infrastructure-level wrapper and leaves too much unsolved for a tool that creates/suppresses vulnerability records.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, headers to required headers, and body to the payload. However, it does not name the query parameters, headers, body fields, or give even a minimal payload example, so an agent cannot reliably construct a request from this alone.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Create suppres vulnerability' reproduces 'post' and 'suppress_vulnerability' without defining the underlying business effect. It does not say whether it creates a suppression record, marks a vulnerability as suppressed, or performs a one-time suppression action, so an agent cannot infer the operation's intent from the text.

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?

The only usage guidance is generic parameter placement: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers, payload in body. There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus its siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is not told what problem this endpoint solves.

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