close_finding_mitigated

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 disclose useful traits: 'mitigated' defaults to now server-side, 'note' is recommended, and note_type points to list_note_types. However it says nothing about permissions or reversibility (reopen_finding exists as a sibling), leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and every parameter entry earns its place. The Args block is slightly verbose but standard and non-redundant.

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. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the definition documents every parameter, defaults, and a cross-reference, which is nearly sufficient; only permission and reversibility context 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all four parameters with meaning: finding_id, note (how/where fixed, recommended), note_type (ID, cross-referencing list_note_types), and mitigated (ISO 8601, server-side default). The cross-reference and default behavior add real value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Close a finding') and names the reason ('because the vulnerability was remediated (fix applied)'), which implicitly distinguishes it from close_finding_duplicate and close_finding_false_positive. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings.

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 reason clause ('remediated/fix applied') implies the correct scenario for this tool versus other close_* variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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