skill.unignoreFinding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful piece of context beyond the schema (the MODELBOUND_API_KEY requirement), but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, failure modes, or what changes as a result of un-ignoring.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. Both sentences carry information, though the second is a bare prerequisite rather than substantive detail.

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 too thin. An agent cannot tell how to identify the target finding, what happens on success, or how this pairs with ignoreFinding.

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 needed to compensate and does not. It never explains what skill_id, finding_key, class, message, or severity do, or why the latter four exist for an un-ignore operation.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Un-ignore a previously ignored finding'), which immediately distinguishes it from the read-only finding tools. It doesn't explicitly name its natural counterpart, skill.ignoreFinding, so the sibling-routing is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus skill.ignoreFinding, nor any precondition such as whether the finding must currently be in an ignored state. The only contextual note is an environment/auth requirement, not usage guidance.

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