Mitigate Finding

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It only notes dryRun defaults true but fails to explain side effects, permissions needed, or what happens when dryRun is false. The tool's actions are opaque.

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 extremely short (two sentences), which is concise, but the lack of substantive content makes it under-specified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description fails to provide essential context: no return value description, no usage examples, no behavioral details beyond a default value. It is wholly insufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description only adds that dryRun defaults true, without clarifying the purpose of findingId, notes, or reason. No parameter-specific semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 merely restates the title 'Mitigate Finding' and mentions a default for dryRun. It does not specify what mitigation entails (e.g., status change, remediation) nor distinguish it from sibling tools like suppress_finding or accept_risk. The purpose is vague.

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 on when to use mitigation versus alternatives like blocking, suppressing, or accepting risk. No context or prerequisites provided.

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