update_vulnerability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description merely restates the core action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, partial update behavior, or any operational constraints. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks essential context such as what happens when neither status nor severity is provided, whether the update is partial or full, and what the return value is. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, merely naming the two optional fields without elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('vulnerability'), and clearly states the two updatable attributes (status, severity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_vulnerability, list_vulnerabilities, and comment tools by specifying its update operation.

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 (to update a vulnerability's status or severity) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites or selection criteria, which leaves the agent to infer from the tool name.

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