add_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the atomic transaction semantics ("if any finding is invalid, nothing is added and every problem is reported") and the validation against the frozen diff with line copying. It omits auth/permission needs and return shape, but the failure behavior is unusually well spelled out.

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 tight sentences with the core action and its batching nature front-loaded, followed by the failure contract and one kind-specific rule. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 batch-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors an agent needs: batching, atomicity on invalid input, diff validation, and the requirement_gap case. Only the success return and any permission requirements are left unstated, which is a minor 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?

Top-level schema coverage is 50% (analysis_id documented, the findings array is not), but the nested item schema is richly documented for severity, kind, location, and suggestion. The description's only parameter-level addition is the requirement_gap hint, which largely repeats the kind enum's own description, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Record findings") and scope ("as a batch"), which cleanly separates it from single-item siblings like update_finding and from add_explanations. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 one concrete usage directive ("Include requirement_gap findings for requested behaviour that is missing"), which implies the when for that kind. However, there is no guidance on when to batch-add here versus updating an existing finding (update_finding) or when this is preferred over other entry points.

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