Update a finding

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent local mutation. The description adds the scope of what changes (status, remediation, audit history) but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or how repeated calls behave given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the mutation front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is sparse enough that the agent must infer details from the schema.

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?

The tool has four parameters at 0% schema description coverage and an output schema that presumably explains returns. The description covers the main fields but omits required-parameter guidance, enum semantics, and the note field, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description names three of the four parameters (status, remediation, and implicitly the update target). It does not describe the finding_id format, the note field, the allowed status enum values, or the maxLength constraints that the schema itself does not describe. Baseline is low, and the description compensates only partially.

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?

The description states a clear verb (Update) and resource (a local finding) plus the fields touched (status, remediation, audit history). It is more specific than create_finding or add_finding_evidence, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the update semantics and sibling set, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the finding must exist), and no routing against add_finding_evidence for evidence and create_finding for new findings.

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