close_finding

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it mentions write scope, rate limits, and a detailed partial failure mode for note attachment, including the _warning field and audit event. Returns JSON with updated finding.

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 front-loaded with key information. However, the DOM-21 block is lengthy and technical, potentially excessive for quick reference, but still valuable.

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 description covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter details, return type, and error behavior thoroughly. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it provides complete context for agent decision-making.

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?

The description adds constraints not present in the input schema: finding_id > 0, reason enum values (mitigated/false_positive/out_of_scope/duplicate), and note optionality. This significantly clarifies parameter use.

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 tool closes a finding with a reason, clearly identifying the action and resource. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'reopen_finding' by focusing on closure.

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 states prerequisites: write scope required and rate limits. It lists valid reasons for closing. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives like 'update_finding' or 'reopen_finding'.

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