verify_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Mark ... as verified' implies a state mutation, but the description does not disclose the state transition, permission requirements, idempotency, or whether an unverify/reopen exists. Only the implied mutation itself is conveyed.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The 'Args:' block is redundant with the schema but does not bloat the text unreasonably.

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, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description should cover state effects, prerequisites, and the verified/unverified lifecycle. None of that is present, leaving the definition thin for a lifecycle-mutating operation.

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 for the single parameter. Instead it merely restates the schema property ('The finding ID to verify' vs. the schema's 'Finding Id') without adding type, format, or lookup guidance. It adds no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 ('Mark a finding as verified'), which is distinguishable from sibling operations like close_finding or accept_risk. However, it never explains what 'verified' means in this domain (e.g., triage confirmation vs. true-positive validation), so differentiation rests on the verb alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say in which finding state verification is valid, whether it is reversible, or which sibling (close_finding, accept_risk, reopen_finding) is appropriate instead. The agent must infer all of this.

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