Update a vulnerability entry (state, risk acceptance notes, remediation date) (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update a vulnerability entry (state, risk acceptance notes, remediation date) (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update (state, risk_acceptance_notes, remediation_date) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the vulnerability entry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fields to update (state, risk_acceptance_notes, remediation_date, etc.)"New value: +"Fields to update (state, risk_acceptance_notes, remediation_date)"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "remediation_date": {},
+ "risk_acceptance_notes": {},
+ "state": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate, but says nothing about whether unspecified fields are left untouched, whether updates are audited, or what happens on an invalid sys_id.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action, then the fields, then the precondition. No filler and nothing to trim.
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?
With only two parameters, full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, and the WRITE_ENABLED gate is a useful addition. However, for an update tool where 'state' is an unconstrained value and 'remediation_date' has no stated format, the description leaves the agent guessing on data shape.
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% and the nested 'fields' object is documented in the schema, so baseline applies. The description only repeats the same three field names without adding format details (e.g. remediation_date format) or valid state values, which is a notable gap for an untyped free-form field.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update a vulnerability entry') and enumerates the mutable fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling updates such as update_vulnerability_group or update_remediation_task. It does not explicitly say which sibling to prefer, but the resource noun is precise 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?
The parenthetical 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when the call will fail. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_vulnerability_group, set_remediation_commitment, or add_vi_to_remediation_task, so usage remains implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.