mark_false_positive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the finding will be flagged in future scans and that similar patterns elsewhere will be annotated—both critical side effects. However, it does not clarify whether the action is reversible (though a sibling `unmark` exists), what constitutes 'similar patterns,' or any permission requirements. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., a separate bullet for side effects). Still, no fluff is present.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and key side effects (future scans, pattern annotation). However, it does not describe the return value, error cases, or how to obtain the `finding` object. The required input constraint (finding must be a dict from a scan tool) is in the schema but not echoed. Overall it is acceptable but not thorough.

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% (both `finding` and `reason` have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 and resource: 'Mark a security finding as a false positive.' It also explains the effect on future scans and similar patterns, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling `unmark_false_positive` or `list_false_positives`, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, the description omits any mention of `unmark_false_positive` for reversing the action or `list_false_positives` for reviewing existing marks. The statement about 'similar patterns' implies a broader impact but doesn't explain when this automated propagation is undesirable.

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