resolve_secret_scanning_alert

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation and blocked under read-only mode, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or idempotency. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but is lacking in depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every line adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the resolution parameter but omits explanations for owner, repo, alert_number, and comment. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is incomplete, though the core action is clear.

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 description lists the possible values for the 'resolution' parameter (false_positive, wont_fix, revoked, used_in_tests) and provides usage context. However, it does not explain the other parameters (owner, repo, alert_number, comment), and the schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 the tool resolves a secret-scanning alert and explicitly marks it as a WRITE OPERATION. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_secret_scanning_alerts, 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?

The description advises using the tool after the credential has been revoked/rotated and notes it is blocked unless GITHUB_MCP_READ_ONLY=false. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the guidance is sufficient given no sibling tool performs the same action.

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