Unignore vulnerability

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond stating the action. It does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or what state the vulnerability transitions to. Since annotations already signal a safe mutation, the description could have elaborated on specific behaviors like whether it triggers a re-scan or affects vulnerability counts.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, straightforward and front-loaded. While it is efficient, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning the prerequisite of the vulnerability being ignored. However, it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple unignore operation. It does not explain return values (likely void or success confirmation) or prerequisites beyond being previously ignored. For a straightforward mutation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (environmentId, imageId, vulnerabilityId). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about how these parameters are used together or any constraints like format or validation rules. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'Unignore a previously ignored vulnerability' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'arcane_vulnerability_ignore' which performs the opposite operation.

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 tool should be used when a previously ignored vulnerability needs to be unignored, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, such as whether the vulnerability must currently be in an ignored state. This, along with the tool name, provides basic context but lacks depth.

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