updateVulnerability

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

The phrase 'modifying only the specified fields' discloses partial-update behavior, which is useful context. However, with no annotations, the description omits permissions, return value, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and no filler words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description doesn't mention what the tool returns on success or failure. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, especially alongside a rich set of sibling tools.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully, so the description adds little beyond what is structured. The description doesn't elaborate on the shape of the 'parameters' object beyond 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 'Update an existing vulnerability with new information,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling createVulnerability by emphasizing 'existing' and 'modifying only the specified fields.'

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 this tool is for modifying existing vulnerabilities, but doesn't explicitly contrast it with createVulnerability or other sibling tools. No alternative tools are named, and no when-to-use scenarios are provided.

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