update_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update lifecycle status,' but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of 5 words, very concise and front-loaded. While it lacks depth, it contains no unnecessary information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (7 parameters, mutation, sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values or how this tool fits among related tools like 'get_findings_risks', leaving gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 86%, so parameters are mostly described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool updates the lifecycle status of a finding, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_findings' and 'apply_finding_remediation' by focusing on status updates, but could be more precise about what statuses are affected.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'submit_findings' or 'update_control_status'. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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