Api findings update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of what fields can be changed, whether omitted fields are preserved, or permission requirements – so it earns little credit for added context without contradicting the annotations.

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 single token is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded useful information because there is no information.

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 two parameters, an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations covering payload semantics, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the body should contain or what the call returns.

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 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The free-form 'body' object in particular is entirely opaque, and the description does nothing to explain what a valid body contains or how 'id' should be supplied.

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 is just 'api_findings_update', which restates the tool name/title without adding a verb-resource statement or scope. An agent can infer this updates a 'finding' but gets no explanation of what a finding is or how the update differs from siblings like findings_partial_update or findings_update.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as findings_partial_update, findings_update, findings_create, and findings_destroy present, the agent is left to guess which mutation endpoint applies.

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