close_finding_false_positive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating, state-changing operation on a finding, whether it is reversible (reopen_finding exists but is not referenced), or what permissions/effects apply. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs far more disclosure.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and followed by a compact Args list with no wasted sentences. The 'recommended' hint on note and the cross-reference on note_type are efficient and earned.

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 need not be explained, and the four parameters are addressed at a high level. But for a destructive/mutating close operation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description omits reversibility, side effects, and when to prefer sibling close variants, leaving meaningful 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, and it partially does: it explains note as 'Why this is a false positive', points note_type to list_note_types, and clarifies out_of_scope. However, finding_id is only restated ('The finding ID to close') with no guidance on where to obtain it, and the note_type cross-reference is helpful but thin.

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 and resource ('Close a finding as a false positive') and names the exact disposition, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like close_finding_duplicate and close_finding_mitigated. An agent can discriminate between the close_finding_* variants without opening any 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 implies when to use it (a finding determined to be a false positive) but never states when not to use it or routes the agent to the sibling close tools for other dispositions. The '(and optionally out of scope)' clause hints at a secondary behavior but does not say when that should be set.

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