Apply auto-remediation to finding

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the concept of 'auto-remediation' but fails to explain the concrete effects on integrations, reversibility, or any required prior steps. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action and provides the essential object and target context.

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?

Despite a destructive, mutation-heavy purpose, the description is too sparse. It lacks any explanation of the operation's outcome, prerequisites, the purpose of 'options', or expected return values. With no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 only 33% (only 'integrations' has a description). The description mentions 'finding' and 'integrations' but adds no details about the 'finding_id' format, the 'options' object, or how integration IDs are selected. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Auto-remediate') applied to a specific resource ('a finding') with a destination ('selected integration(s)'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bulk_apply' by indicating a single finding vs. bulk operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_remediation_bulk_apply or list_integrations. The phrase 'selected integration(s)' implies prior selection but no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this is the right choice.

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