update_finding

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world). It discloses the crucial replacement semantics of evidence (replaces, not appends), that evidence is validated like create_finding, the confirm-requires-evidence rule, the return value, and atomic failure behavior ('the change is rejected, in which case it is left as it was'). This is exactly the mutation/validation context an agent needs and that structured fields alone don't convey.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and field list, then layers behavioral constraints. Every sentence carries information (replacement, validation, minimum input, return, error). It is slightly long and packs several ideas into one block, but there is little waste.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the replacement/validation rules, the return value, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: evidence replaces existing evidence, is validated identically to create_finding, and at least one non-findingId field is required. It doesn't add enforcement detail beyond what the nested evidence schema already provides, but the replacement rule is meaningful new semantics.

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) and enumerates the mutable fields (status, confidence, reasoning, evidence), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It is clearly distinct from create_finding/list_findings by function, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: confirm only once evidence supports it, mark contradicted otherwise, and supply at least one field besides findingId. It also states the precondition that a finding can't be confirmed without evidence. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative-routing statement, so it is clear context rather than full selection guidance.

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