Manage Remediation Campaign Workflow

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

The description adds a concrete auth precondition: writes require an authenticated admin operator with `findings:write`. The mention of the same campaign store/verification service also adds context about consistency. This does not contradict the `destructiveHint: true` annotation.

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 only two concise sentences and includes the most critical facts first: what the tool does and who can perform writes. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

With a rich input schema covering all 15 parameters and action descriptions, the overall information is sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not set all action modes, such as `verification_queue`, in the free-text description, but that is still easily discovered through the schema.

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?

Every parameter in the input schema has its own description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not need to explain parameters, so the text meets the baseline. No extra parameter semantics beyond schema are added.

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 explicitly says 'List, assign, ticket, or verify a tenant-scoped remediation campaign', giving a clear verb list and resource. It does not explicitly show why this tool is better than sibling tools like `remediate` or `verify`, but the campaign workflow scope is clear.

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 provides useful context: the operation is tenant-scoped, reuses the same campaign store/verification service as REST and CLI, and writes require an authenticated admin with `findings:write`. It does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance relative to the many sibling tools.

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