acknowledge_finding

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well: it explains the state transition (out of findings, counts and grade), persistence in the `acknowledged` list 'where it stays visible with your reason', and the reversal mechanism ('undo=true puts it back'). It also notes the site-scoping constraint ('Works on reports filed under a site'). It does not mention permissions/authorization or idempotency of repeat acknowledgements, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and effect in the first sentence, then adds usage guidance, parameter passing, and undo in a tight sequence. Every sentence is functional, though the em-dash-heavy compound sentences and the trailing site-scoping note reduce crispness slightly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, usage constraints, and reversal, which is close to what an agent needs. It omits the response shape and whether the report must be a site report in all cases beyond the terse 'Works on reports filed under a site' note.

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 every parameter (report, rule, selector, reason, undo) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates that set ('Pass the report (URL or id), the rule and the selector exactly as the finding gives them, and a reason') with only slight added guidance about copying values verbatim from the finding.

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 ('Mark ONE finding as a known false positive for this site') and immediately describes the downstream effect on findings, counts, grade, and the acknowledged list. This is unmistakably distinct from audit_url, get_report, get_shot, and verify_fix without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only after you've checked the finding is wrong on this page (the rule misread it)') and an explicit exclusion ('never to silence a real problem you'd rather not fix'), which is strong when/when-not guidance. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. verify_fix) for the case where the problem is real, so it stops short of full 5-level routing.

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