Instructions to fix one finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: omitting finding_id selects the most important open finding and lists the others, and the response shape (before/after, done-when check) is disclosed despite there being no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the deliverable is front-loaded before the fallback behavior and usage note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only, single-parameter-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the deliverable content, the default selection behavior, and the calling context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions finding_id omission and the site-wide page behavior, but those are already spelled out in the schema's own parameter descriptions, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific deliverable: step-by-step fix instructions for one finding, including what to change, exact file:line locations, a before/after example, and a 'done when' check. That is far more concrete than the title and clearly separates this action tool from reporting/summary siblings like slop_report.

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?

It gives a clear usage mode ("work through a scan one problem at a time") and explains the no-finding_id fallback. It does not, however, name alternatives such as slop_rescue_plan or slop_report, nor state when not to reach for this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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