Api vulnerabilities refresh due dates create

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful scope ('all vulnerabilities') and the SLA dependency, but omits whether manually set due dates are overwritten, whether closed vulnerabilities are included, what permissions are needed, and whether the bulk recalculation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, affected resource, and calculation basis are all stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter bulk mutation with no output schema, the description states scope and basis but leaves important operational details unclear – notably the blast radius on manually adjusted due dates, treatment of closed vulnerabilities, and what the caller receives after execution.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is a 4. The description adds a meaningful semantic constraint by noting recalculation applies to all vulnerabilities and uses the current SLA policy, but there are no parameters whose semantics need further explanation.

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 action ('Recalculate due_date'), a concrete resource ('all vulnerabilities'), and the basis ('current SLA policy'). This clearly distinguishes it from per-record siblings like vulnerabilities_update or vulnerabilities_partial_update, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'based on current SLA policy' – an agent can infer this should be run after SLA settings change, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative such as settings_vulnerability_sla_update or individual vulnerability updates.

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