unmark_false_positive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that the finding will no longer be flagged in future scans, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires authentication, what happens if the fingerprint does not exist, or other side effects. The disclosure is minimal but accurate.

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 wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the consequence. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what it does, how (by fingerprint), and the effect. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the tool is straightforward and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its basic operation.

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% with a description for the 'fingerprint' parameter. The tool description repeats 'by its fingerprint' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter.

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 'remove' and the resource 'false positive record', and it distinguishes from siblings like mark_false_positive (adds) and list_false_positives (lists). The effect on future scans is also specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when you want to undo a false positive marking, but it does not explicitly contrast with mark_false_positive or list_false_positives. No guidance on when not to use this tool or prerequisites (e.g., fingerprint must exist). Usage is inferred but not explicitly guided.

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