scf_add_capability_test_finding

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing the write's authorization requirement (editor), its side effect (creates a linked deficiency record), and a server-side refusal condition. It does not cover idempotency or duplicate-finding behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the precondition. Every clause carries information — nothing is redundant or padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral context. With no output schema, it does not say what is returned (e.g. the created finding/deficiency identifier), which is a minor remaining gap.

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 100%, so every one of the 11 parameters is documented inline (including cross-tool hints like scf_list_organizations). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add a finding to a capability test) and immediately discloses the resulting artifact — the finding is recorded as a deficiency linked to the test. This lets an agent distinguish it from scf_create_deficiency and scf_update_capability_test without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and exclusion: the call is refused on a test already recorded as passed, and the caller should correct the test result instead. It also names the required role (editor). It stops short of naming the sibling tool (e.g. scf_update_capability_test) that performs that correction, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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