Mark a finding as fine for us

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so by disclosing the locked-check restriction and the optional match-based scoping behavior. It omits whether exceptions are idempotent, reversible, or error on duplicates, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its negative scope front-loaded before the alternative route. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, key constraint, and the escape hatch to a different tool. The only real gap is what happens on success or on a duplicate exception, which an agent might want before retrying.

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 only 33%: `match` is documented in the schema, but `reason` and `check_id` have no schema descriptions. The description only gestures at these ('with a reason', implicitly a finding/check id) and adds the useful 'Optionally scoped' framing for match. It partially, but not fully, compensates for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: recording that a finding is acceptable for this team, with an explicit clarification that this is not a tool bug. It also names the contrasting path (/report-problem) so the agent can distinguish this waiver action from bug reporting without consulting other definitions.

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?

It states a clear exclusion ('For tool bugs use /report-problem instead') and a hard precondition ('Locked checks can't be waived'). It does not enumerate when to prefer a waiver over other remediation siblings like bulk_edit_preview, but the when/when-not framing is explicit enough to route correctly.

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