apply_finding_remediation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state, records justification in the audit trail, and returns specific HTTP status codes (404, 409, 400, 422) for various failure conditions. Could be more explicit about irreversibility, but the error codes provide significant transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, usage guidelines, and error code enumeration. It is front-loaded with purpose and mutation info. However, it is slightly verbose with the operator guidance, which could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers prerequisites, workflow, and error handling. It does not mention output format, but that is likely covered by the output schema. Permissions and idempotency are not discussed, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for 'justification' (recorded on audit trail, must be non-empty) but does not add extra meaning for 'server_version' beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema covers most parameters.

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 it applies remediation for a finding with state mutation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'preview_finding_remediation' by explicitly referencing the preview-then-apply workflow.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'DO NOT call this without first calling preview_finding_remediation and showing the operator the diff.' It also explains the need for operator confirmation, which is not enforced by the platform but by the agent.

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