unmark_false_positive

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral scope—the flag is removed from 'matching findings' as well as the single finding—but it does not clarify reversibility, idempotency, or what 'matching findings' means.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds the important scope detail without wasted words, which is ideal for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter mutation, the description conveys the core operation and scope, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations, explicit usage guidance, and a definition of 'matching findings' leaves some ambiguity about side effects and prerequisites.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain finding_id. However, the parameter is self-explanatory by name and title, and the description gives some context that the id selects a finding plus its matches. Still, the description does not fully compensate for the schema 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 states a specific action—'Remove the false-positive flag'—against a specific resource ('a finding and matching findings'). The scope wording also distinguishes it from the sibling mark_false_positive, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 intended use case—undoing a false-positive marking—is strongly implied by the operation itself, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus mark_false_positive or provide exclusions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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