close_finding_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that closing is a mutating operation that deletes or supersedes the finding, whether it requires permissions, whether the action is reversible, or how duplicates are resolved. The Args block only restates parameter names.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args block is largely duplicative of the JSON schema and adds little value, inflating the description without earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover state requirements, permissions, and side effects. As written, it is too thin for the operation's complexity.

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. It defines finding_id, duplicate_of, and note at a basic level, but doesn't explain accepted formats (e.g., whether finding IDs come from list_findings), semantics of 'original (canonical) finding', or note usage constraints. The restatement of the schema parameter names with no added semantic detail leaves the agent guessing about validity and constraints.

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+resource+operation: closes a finding as a duplicate of another. The sibling set contains close_finding, close_finding_false_positive, close_finding_mitigated and reset_finding_duplicate_status, but the description is specific enough that an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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 purpose but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling closures or vs. get_finding_duplicates. Nothing states prerequisites, prerequisite finding states, or when the operation is inappropriate.

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