update_vulnerability

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the prerequisite that WRITE_ENABLED must be true, which is useful operational context. It doesn't contradict the annotations, and it gives a bit more color about the fields affected. However, it doesn't describe side effects or return behavior.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical that packs the essential information—action, target fields, and a critical prerequisite—with no unnecessary words.

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 two-parameter update tool, the description plus full schema coverage and helpful annotations make it reasonably complete. The lack of an output schema means the agent doesn't know the return format, and there's no mention of partial-update behavior or error conditions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' coverage.

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 100% with descriptions for both sys_id and fields, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of state, risk acceptance notes, and remediation date mirrors the schema's 'etc.' and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update') and resource ('a vulnerability entry'), and enumerates the primary fields (state, risk acceptance notes, remediation date), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability or list_vulnerabilities.

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 is used to modify an existing vulnerability entry but provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' or exclusions. For example, it doesn't reference get_vulnerability for reads or mention when not to use this tool. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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