update_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that 'history is kept', implying an audit trail and non-destructive semantics. It does not say whether permissions are required, whether a statement edit replaces prior text, or how partial updates behave.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus one concrete example; nothing is padded. The example earns its place by showing the id format and the status argument.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the status domain and audit behavior but leaves gaps around partial-update semantics (both status and statement optional/nullable), error behavior, and confirmation of return value.

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 compensate, and it does partially by enumerating status values (open, confirmed, dismissed) — real information absent from the enum-less schema. However 'wording' only loosely maps to the 'statement' parameter, and validation constraints or format for finding_id are unstated.

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?

States a specific verb ('change') and resource ('a finding's status or wording') and enumerates the status domain. The resource is distinct from sibling add_finding, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 example call implies how to invoke it and the status values suggest the intended use, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus add_finding or when not to use it.

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