Confirm Finding

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

The description only mentions 'dryRun defaults true', which provides one behavioral detail about the default behavior. However, it does not disclose whether this is a write operation, what side effects occur when dryRun is false, or any authorization requirements. No annotations are present to supplement, so the description carries the full burden and 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 very short (two sentences) and lacks structure. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary content. The first sentence largely restates the title, and the second provides a single behavioral note. It earns a 3 as minimally adequate in length but lacking meaningful organization.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the confirm action's outcome, side effects, return value, or usage context. The agent has insufficient information to safely invoke this tool.

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 0% and the description adds minimal semantic value. The only parameter detail is that dryRun defaults to true. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of findingId, notes, or reason, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 'Confirm Finding', which identifies the action and resource, but it is vague and does not explain what confirming a finding entails. Among sibling tools like armorcode_accept_risk, armorcode_block_finding, and armorcode_mitigate_finding, the description fails to distinguish the specific purpose of 'confirm' from these related actions.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context. The sibling list contains many similar tools, and without guidance, the agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario for 'confirm'.

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