reopen_finding

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: required permission, rate-limiting, and a detailed edge case on partial failure (note attachment fails while reopen succeeds), including response structure and audit events.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and permission. Includes a detailed edge-case section that adds value but slightly lengthens description. Well-structured overall.

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 sibling tools, parameter count, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and edge cases. No gaps evident.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains finding_id must be >0 and note is optional with purpose 'reason for reopening'. Could add format constraints but provides sufficient meaning.

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 reopens a previously mitigated finding. Differentiates from siblings like close_finding and update_finding by specifying the action and permission gating (engagement_mgmt vs finding_mgmt).

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?

States when to use: reopening a mitigated finding. Notes permission requirements and that it signals remediation failure. Does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_finding_note for just adding a note, but context is clear.

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