add_finding_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether an existing key is overwritten or duplicated, whether the change is auditable or reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the mutation affects the finding. 'Add metadata' is the only behavioral content.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, but the Args block is auto-generated filler that re-lists schema fields without adding information, which is noise rather than value.

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 an un-annotated mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate: it omits key-collision behavior, permission requirements, and any pointer to list_finding_metadata for reading existing metadata. The presence of an output schema only excuses the absence of return-value documentation, not these gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates parameter names with generic glosses ('The finding ID', 'Metadata key name', 'Metadata value'). It adds no format, constraint, length, or uniqueness semantics — notably whether 'name' must be unique per finding. Output schema exists, so return semantics are correctly omitted.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Add metadata to a finding.' It is unambiguous about the operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling list_finding_metadata (or the broader finding-edit tools), so an agent must infer the add-vs-read split.

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 given on when to use this tool versus list_finding_metadata, update_finding, or add_finding_note. There are no preconditions, no mention of required permissions, and no statement of 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.