Update Finding

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 is mutating, that it records a MANUAL transition, and that auto_resolved is deliberately refused because setting it by hand would forge a platform-only claim — a strong, non-obvious behavioral disclosure. It does not cover permissions/auth or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the mutating statement before the usage and exception details. Every sentence carries information, though the second and third run long and mix usage guidance with rationale.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the schema documents the parameters. The description adds the lifecycle framing, sibling routing, and the auto_resolved exclusion, leaving only minor gaps such as required permissions. Nearly complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents status, reason, notes, finding_id, and remediation_assertion_ids. The description largely restates the auto_resolved exclusion that the status field already explains, adding only the manual-vs-machine framing; at high coverage the baseline of 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Advance a finding through its lifecycle. Mutating: updates the finding's status and metadata') and explicitly distinguishes itself from submit_findings/list_findings (creation/reading) and remediate_finding (automatic cleanup). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases ('acknowledge, remediate, verify, or dismiss a finding previously recorded by submit_findings / list_findings') and a when-not / alternative ('for gaps whose kind has an automatic fix, remediate_finding performs the actual cleanup instead'). It also names the dismissal path and its condition (with a reason). Routing is unambiguous.

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