pcb_accept_finding

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the persistent effect of excluding the finding from counts on subsequent reviews, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the action is reversible, whether specific permissions are needed, or what happens to the provided reason.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately explains the follow-on consequence, making it easy to scan.

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 simple state-changing action with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and effect. It lacks minor details like reversibility or session requirement, but the core behavior is sufficiently described.

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?

The schema already describes two of three parameters (reason, finding_hash) with 67% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail and does not address the undocumented session_id. However, the existing schema descriptions are clear enough that the missing session_id is relatively minor.

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 uses a clear verb 'Mark' with direct object 'finding' and specifies the classification as 'accepted/false positive.' It further distinguishes by noting the consequence 'excluded from counts on subsequent reviews,' which clearly separates it from mere listing or review actions.

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?

The description implies the use case: when you want to accept a finding as a false positive. It provides context about the effect on subsequent review counts, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used.

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