triage_security_insight

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond annotations: it explains the dry_run default and that bulk_triage shows what would be updated without executing, discloses that insight_ids auto-populate from priority_filter, and notes that priority_filter fetches matching open insights. This complements the destructiveHint annotation by detailing safety mechanisms.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, usage guidance, a compact Args section, a Returns line, and concrete examples. Every sentence is informative and contributes to understanding the tool, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 3 actions, a destructive operation), the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, operation behavior, the dry_run safety, and examples for each action. An output schema exists, so the return description is sufficient. No gaps are 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?

The description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions by giving each parameter a clear semantic meaning, including which actions they apply to (e.g., 'insight_id: Single insight ID (for update_status, get_history)'). It also explains the auto-population logic and dry_run behavior, going beyond the schema's raw 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: 'Triage security insights: update status, bulk triage by priority, or get comment history.' It lists specific operations and explicitly differentiates from siblings by advising to use this for incident response actions, while pointing to investigate_threat() and assess_security_posture() for other contexts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS for incident response actions.' It also names alternatives: 'For investigation use investigate_threat(). For posture review use assess_security_posture().' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement.

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