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' and 'records a manual status transition,' clarifying it does not perform actual cleanup. However, it omits details on whether status transitions are validated, whether calls are idempotent, or what side effects occur on existing metadata.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, and a second provides usage context with alternatives. No wasted words, and every sentence 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 the tool's role in a lifecycle and the large sibling set, the description adequately explains when to use it and how it differs from automatic remediation tools. It doesn't detail return values, but an output schema exists, and the description focuses on the core action and context.

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 high (86%), and the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds modest context by mapping statuses to lifecycle actions ('acknowledge, remediate, verify, or dismiss'), but it does not add further meaning to server_version, model_id, or finding_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Advance a finding through its lifecycle. Mutating: updates the finding's status and metadata.' This identifies the specific verb (advance/update), the resource (finding), and the scope (status and metadata), and distinguishes it from sibling remediation tools by clarifying it records a manual status transition.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to acknowledge, remediate, verify, or dismiss a finding previously recorded by submit_findings / list_findings.' It also provides an exclusion: 'for gaps whose kind has an automatic fix, preview_finding_remediation + apply_finding_remediation perform the actual cleanup instead.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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