scf_update_capability_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structure. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: partial-update semantics ('only passed fields change'), no clearing, and append semantics for findings, plus the cross-field rule that result must agree with findings. A 4 rather than 5 because it omits the '422/404' validation feedback that the schema itself carries.

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?

Three terse sentences, each carrying a distinct rule (write mode, partial update, findings append, result/findings consistency) with zero padding and the operation type front-loaded.

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?

Covers the mutation semantics that an agent cannot infer from the schema alone. Given no output schema and 100% schema coverage, no return-value explanation is needed, and the only minor gap is the unstated permission/auth requirement behind 'editor'.

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% and the schema itself documents every field in depth (including the result/findings coupling and scf_id scope rules). The description adds only the partial-update and append semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Correct' and resource 'capability test', with an explicit write/editor hint. It distinguishes itself from the sibling scf_create_capability_test in verb, though it doesn't spell out the alternative the way a 5 would.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of scf_create_capability_test, scf_get_capability_test, or scf_add_capability_test_finding. The parenthetical '(write — editor)' hints at permission but is not a usage condition.

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