createVulnerability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the creation action and does not disclose side effects, required data, permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 repetition or unnecessary words. Efficient and clear in structure.

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?

Given the open-ended schema and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'detailed information' should include, how to set the current project, or what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 schema has zero declared parameters but allows arbitrary additional string properties. The description mentions 'detailed information' but does not enumerate expected fields. With no explicit parameters, baseline is 3, and the vague phrase adds little value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('security vulnerability finding'), and the scope ('in the current project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getVulnerabilities, updateVulnerability, and createProject.

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 description implies use for creating new vulnerability findings, clearly distinguished from updateVulnerability for modifications. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full guidance.

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