Unignore Finding

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description clarifies that the operation only affects a local file and does not mutate external systems. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no extraneous information. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it immediately clear.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action and its scope (local only). It is complete enough given the complexity, though a brief note on what a fingerprint is would raise it further.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'fingerprint', and the tool description does not explain what a fingerprint is or its expected format. The minimal context 'Remove a finding fingerprint' implies it identifies a finding, but this is insufficient for precise usage.

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 action: 'Remove a finding fingerprint from the local ignored-findings file.' The verb 'remove' and resource 'finding fingerprint' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'setup_ignore_finding' which would add rather than remove, though not explicitly named.

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 limited guidance on when to use this tool. It states that it 'never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN,' which is helpful context but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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