update_finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: a rejected finding is not recreated by later extraction. However, it omits other important behaviors such as idempotency, persistence guarantees, whether updates are incremental or full replacements, or any permission/auth requirements. Coverage is partial.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the status usage is directly relevant. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, whether fields are updated partially or fully, or any prerequisites. Critical details for an agent to call this correctly (e.g., is finding_id always required, what happens if status is omitted) are absent.

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 only 10% (only 'engagement' has a description). The tool description adds semantics for the status parameter by explaining the meaning of 'confirmed' and 'rejected' values, which is beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify other parameters like evidence_refs or affected_entities, leaving them self-explanatory but not guaranteed. Given low coverage, it compensates only partially.

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 a specific action ('Set a finding's status or fields') with a specific resource ('finding'), and elaborates on the status values with concrete examples (confirmed/rejected). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_finding and list_findings, which are read-only.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use specific statuses ('confirmed' to accept, 'rejected' to dismiss) and notes the behavioral consequence of rejection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., creating a new finding vs updating) or mention when to use it over other tools, though the verb 'update' already implies modification.

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