Update Finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutation and side effects: it says 'Mutating,' records a MANUAL status transition, and explains that auto_resolved is deliberately refused. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but its explicit coverage of the tool's most important behavioral constraint is substantial.

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 first line front-loads the essential action, and the rest is organized into clear usage-and-alternative guidance. It is efficient, though the second paragraph partially repeats the status schema's explanation of auto_resolved.

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?

The description provides the needed selection context: what the tool does, that it mutates, which statuses are valid, and which sibling tools handle the cases it refuses. Combined with a rich input schema and an output schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 86%, above the high-coverage threshold, so the baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter detail. The description does add context around status (manual transition vs auto_resolved), but much of that is already present in the status parameter's own schema description, and server_version remains undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Advance a finding through its lifecycle,' and identifies the concrete mutation ('pdates the finding's status and metadata'). It also names sibling tools (submit_findings/list_findings, preview_finding_remediation/apply_finding_remediation), so an agent can distinguish this from related operations.

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 explicitly says 'Use to acknowledge, remediate, verify, or dismiss a finding previously recorded by submit_findings/list_findings,' which defines exactly when to call it. It also gives an exclusion: auto_resolved is not accepted, and directs agents with auto-fixable gaps to preview/apply remediation instead. This is strong routing guidance.

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