Persist user guidance and priority on a finding so the agent reads it before selecting the next check.
Persist user guidance on a finding. The agent reads it before selecting the next check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | ||
| priority | Yes | ||
| findingId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds that the persisted guidance is later read by the agent before choosing the next check, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not cover permissions, durability, or side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the key behavioral consequence.
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 tool with four required parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It communicates the core purpose but omits parameter meaning, priority semantics, and invocation context needed to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, and all four parameters are required, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It only vaguely hints that the guidance concerns a finding, leaving runId, priority, note limits, and the relationship between parameters unexplained.
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 verb and resource: 'Persist user guidance on a finding.' It distinguishes the tool from generic update/save siblings by describing the artifact persisted and its role, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or scope boundaries.
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 agent reads the guidance before selecting the next check, which is behavioral context rather than invocation guidance. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling comparison, leaving the agent to infer the trigger from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.