update_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'partial update' and does not mention side effects, history behavior, permissions, or irreversibility. The reason parameter's behavioral nuances (correction vs supersede) live in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a useful sibling distinction in parentheses. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

The input schema is rich, including patch structure, server-managed fields, and reason semantics, and an output schema exists, which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. The description itself is minimal, but combined with the schema it is adequate for correct invocation; the main gap is the lack of mutation-safety context due to absent annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents finding_id, patch format, and reason semantics thoroughly. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic notion of a partial update, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the action ('기존 finding 을 부분 갱신한다' - partially update an existing finding) and clearly distinguishes it from record_finding for the same-finding update case. This lets an agent select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 names the alternative ('record') and gives an explicit condition: use this when updating an existing finding rather than recording a new one. It does not enumerate exclusions beyond that, but the sibling context makes the main decision clear.

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