reopen_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: it clears the mitigated state and the false-positive/duplicate/out-of-scope flags unless explicitly restored. That is meaningful mutation context, though it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens to unrelated finding state.

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?

Front-loads the action, follows with the state-change behavior, then lists args. Efficient and well structured, with only minor redundancy in the parenthetical and tautological finding_id gloss.

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 a mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, and all parameters. It stops short of auth/permission and reversibility details, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 documents all four parameters. The restore_false_positive/restore_out_of_scope explanations ('keep the flag as-is instead of clearing it') add real meaning, while finding_id's 'The finding ID to reopen' is only minimally informative.

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 ('Reopen (reactivate)') and resource ('a closed/mitigated finding'), and the parenthetical plus the state qualifier distinguish it from the close_finding* siblings. An agent can identify the operation 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 phrase 'a closed/mitigated finding' implies this is only for findings in those states, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. the many close_finding* siblings) are given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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