Accept Coverage Divergences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses that missing_mapping adds coverage while spurious_mapping removes it, that changes are batched as one version per affected control, that validation is per-item, and that partial batches still apply valid items.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses compact paragraphs to add essential behavioral detail and usage workflow. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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 mutating batch tool with no annotations, the description covers core effects, validation behavior, and prerequisite workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor missing context is the meaning of server_version, but overall the description is sufficient for correct usage.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral meaning of each item kind and by advising how to filter coverage rows before constructing the items array. The only gap is server_version, which remains undocumented.

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 identifies the action ('Accept a set of coverage divergences'), the resource ('coverage divergences'), and the batch scope ('as mapping changes, in one batch'). It also differentiates the semantics of the two item kinds, making the tool's specific role 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?

The description gives explicit sequencing guidance: read rows first with get_verdict_divergence, optionally filter by p_covers, then pass items here. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling dismiss_verdict_divergences, but the prerequisite workflow is clear and actionable.

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