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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the genuine auth requirement (project_risks:write scope), which is useful context beyond the structured fields. It does not explain what happens on a duplicate or whether the created risk is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite. No wasted words or filler.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient; the scope requirement is the key extra fact. It leaves the non-idempotent behavior (duplicate handling) unexplained, which would be the remaining useful addition.

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 one of the 12 parameters carries its own description plus enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project risk'), which clearly separates it from update_project_risk, delete_project_risk, and get_project_risk among the large sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the resource noun is 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 only guidance is a scope prerequisite ('Requires project_risks:write scope'). There is no statement of when to use this rather than bulk_create, update_project_risk, or how it relates to the project it is attached to.

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