Bulk auto-remediation

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the bulk scope but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or asynchronous behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds some context, but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear in its brevity.

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 bulk destructive operation with no output schema and a vague payload schema, the one-sentence description leaves critical gaps: what constitutes a finding, what the payload should contain, whether the operation is synchronous, and what the response looks like. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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 schema covers the sole parameter with a description, but that description ('Bulk remediation payload (matches OpenAPI schema)') is vague and does not explain the payload structure. The tool description also offers no additional parameter meaning. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'auto-remediate' and clearly identifies the resource ('multiple findings') and the scope ('in a single call'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool cymulate_remediation_apply by indicating this is the bulk variant.

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 implies a batch use case ('multiple findings in a single call') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the single-finding alternative, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides only implicit guidance.

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