finding_revise

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

Discloses the primary mutation action and logging behavior, which is critical for a write operation. However, without annotations, it lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, or side effects beyond logging.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and directly to the point.

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?

Covers main purpose, usage context, and basic parameter roles. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Still, it could elaborate on what 'self-correction event' entails and potential constraints.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to parameters (e.g., finding_id is the finding to revise, to_verdict is new verdict, reason is why, trigger_exec_id is optional trigger execution ID). But it does not describe each parameter explicitly or provide acceptable values.

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?

Clearly states the tool revises a finding's verdict and logs a self-correction event. Differentiates from siblings like 'finding_propose' by specifying the action on existing findings with specific states (CONTRADICTED, UNSUPPORTED).

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after new evidence resolves CONTRADICTED finding or retracting UNSUPPORTED claim. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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