skill.ignoreFinding

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful non-schema fact - that MODELBOUND_API_KEY is required - but says nothing about whether the ignore is persistent across runs, whether it affects reports/checks, or how it interacts with the class/severity fallback matching that could suppress more than one finding.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the addressing mechanism are front-loaded before the credential note. Near-optimal sizing for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the credential requirement and the two lookup strategies, but omits the purpose of the required skill_id, the persistence/scope of an ignore, and any statement of what the tool returns or affects.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps finding_key, class, severity, and message to the two addressing modes, which is real added value, but leaves the required skill_id unexplained, gives no formats or matching semantics, and never states whether finding_key takes precedence over the class/severity/message triple.

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 and resource ('Ignore a finding') and even names the addressing mechanisms (stable key, or class/severity/message). An agent immediately knows what the tool operates on, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling skill.unignoreFinding, which is the only meaningful confusion risk.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it is called to suppress a known finding, and the parenthetical gives two targeting modes. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no precedence rule between finding_key and class/severity/message, and no mention that skill.unignoreFinding reverses it.

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