Mark Threat Resolved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden; it clearly discloses that this is a state-changing operation (marks threats resolved) and lists acceptable verdict values. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or whether this irreversibly resolves the threat in SentinelOne.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the required verdict vocabulary with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary, and the core invocation path (threat_ids + analyst_verdict) is covered. The definition is still thin for a mutation tool lacking annotations: it omits usage prerequisites, side-effect caveats, and tenant targeting behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does add meaning for analyst_verdict by enumerating the four accepted values and implies that threat_ids can cover multiple threats. It does not explain note or tenant semantics, though those names are fairly self-explanatory alongside their defaults.

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 ('Mark'), a clear resource ('threats'), and the resulting state ('as resolved'), immediately distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like get_threats and get_unresolved_threats. The verdict values reinforce what the tool accomplishes.

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 phrase 'with analyst verdict' implies this should be used after an analyst has reached a conclusion, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as process_pending_alerts. Usage context is therefore only implied.

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