Record a triage decision

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes further: it discloses that the decision is persisted to the project's local Skylos state, that the call fails with an authentication error without SKYLOS_API_KEY, and the 5 calls/day quota on the unauthenticated path. That is exactly the failure-mode and persistence context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and feedback-loop rationale are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the write target and auth constraint. The trailing CLI sentence is slightly tangential for a description of this specific tool, but it earns its place by routing the agent when no key is available.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, authentication requirements, failure behavior, persistence target, and alternatives. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% – path, action, and action_id each have their own description, including the accept/dismiss enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Record whether a finding was accepted or dismissed') and ties it to a named sibling, `get_triage_suggestions`, explaining the feedback loop. An agent can distinguish this from the other triage/scan siblings without opening a 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?

Explicit about when to call it (after accepting/dismissing a finding), the prerequisite (SKYLOS_API_KEY must be set or it errors), and the alternatives when the key is absent (only `analyze`, or the local CLI `skylos verify`/`skylos agent install-hooks`). This is genuine when/when-not guidance with named fallbacks.

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