apply_finding_remediation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state, commits changes, and records justification in the audit trail. It also describes specific error responses, enhancing transparency. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or rate limits, which could be considered gaps.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear one-liner, then explains the workflow and constraints, and ends with error conditions. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (mutation with workflow dependency and error codes), the description adequately covers the key behavioral aspects: prerequisite call, operator confirmation, and error handling. Since an output schema exists, the lack of output description is acceptable. Minor omissions include missing details on success responses or permissions, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces that `justification` must be non-empty and is recorded, but adds little beyond the schema for `finding_id`. The `server_version` parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description, so no additional meaning is provided. The description provides some value but does not significantly augment 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?

The description clearly states the tool applies remediation for a finding and mutates state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `preview_finding_remediation` by explicitly indicating it commits the changes previewed. The verb 'apply' and resource 'finding remediation' are specific and clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only after calling `preview_finding_remediation` and obtaining operator confirmation. It also lists error conditions (404, 409, 400, 422) that guide when not to call, and explains the agent's role in getting confirmation.

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