remediate

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it enqueues a proposal for approval, never auto-applies, and respects blocked_categories. It also indicates the output (proposal id and approval URL). It could add more about failure modes or state changes, but is fairly transparent.

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 description is concise (5 lines) and well-structured, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, has output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavioral constraints, and output. It is complete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'finding: id or description of what to remediate (required)' and 'action: ''propose'' (default) to queue a proposal for approval.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request remediation of a security finding or incident.' It uses a specific verb ('request remediation') and resource ('security finding/incident'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_security_findings which are read-only.

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 description explains that the tool respects blocked_categories, is human-approval-gated, enqueues a proposal, and never auto-applies. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for auto-remediation.

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