finding_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that this is a write operation via '(WRITE)', which is minimally informative and mostly restates the verb 'Update'. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, requirement for existing record, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and flags the write nature. There is no wasted wording, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given it is a write operation with a nested updates object and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the finding doesn't exist, any permission requirements, or expected results (though an output schema exists, so return values may be covered). The description alone provides insufficient context for correct invocation and error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (finding_id and updates) are fully documented in the schema, including an example for updates. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither helps nor harms.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing Finding', and explicitly flags it as a write operation with '(WRITE)'. This distinguishes it from read/search tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't specifically differentiate it from other update tools like tickets_update_case, but the resource type (Finding vs tickets) makes it unambiguous enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflows (e.g., search first then update), or conditions that make this tool the correct choice. The single sentence gives no context for selection.

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