update_finding_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses that this is a database-modifying write operation and mandates user confirmation, which are crucial behavioral traits. It also specifies return behavior for success and failure.

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 well-structured with sections for description, args, and returns, and it is reasonably concise. It contains a slight redundancy in the warning, but overall each part serves a purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return values, and the necessary user-confirmation requirement. It provides enough information for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It provides a clear definition for each: finding_id as the ID to update and new_status with the only allowed values 'Open' or 'Closed'. This extends meaningfully beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: updating the status of audit findings. The verb 'update' and resource 'status of audit findings' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from sibling tools (list_findings, find_by_status) by its write 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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (to change finding status) and emphasizes the critical requirement to get user confirmation before executing, which is an important guideline. It does not mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the context is clear.

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