Preview Finding Remediation

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility and delivers: read-only/no-side-effects, variable diff shape by finding kind, a concrete structural_duplicate_controls example, and explicit 404/422 error semantics. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then moves to usage, output variation, and errors in a logical order. It is longer than necessary only by a minor redundancy around confirmation, but every section earns its place.

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 no annotations, the description covers safety, usage, error cases, and output variation adequately, and an output schema exists for return values. The only substantive omission is the required server_version parameter, which is left undocumented in both the schema and prose.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented server_version parameter at all; the agent must guess its meaning and accepted values. finding_id is also described only in the schema, so the prose adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Preview what the platform would do to remediate a finding') and immediately defines the output as a structured diff, with the counterpart tool named. It is clearly distinguishable from apply_finding_remediation on first read.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: use this BEFORE apply_finding_remediation to show the operator the cleanup and obtain confirmation before committing. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or compare against other preview-like siblings, but the directive is unambiguous.

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