mark_true_positive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, effects on issue status, or response format. It mentions 'confirmed vulnerability' but doesn't elaborate on implications.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and uses a structured 'Args' section efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with security implications, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, but the description adds basic meaning by specifying that 'issue_id' is for the issue to mark, which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't provide details like format, source, or constraints, leaving gaps despite the single parameter.

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 verb ('mark') and resource ('security issue') with specific status ('true positive/confirmed vulnerability'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'mark_false_positive' beyond the status difference, missing a direct comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_false_positive' or 'archive_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for marking an issue as true positive. The description lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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