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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact beyond annotations: the required project_risks:write scope. It says nothing about failure modes on the required project_id, or what a duplicate creation does given idempotentHint is false.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope requirement immediately after. Nothing here needs trimming.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it conveys the action and the auth scope, and the schema covers field semantics and defaults. It omits what the call returns (e.g., the created risk ID) and any note on validation failures, leaving it adequate but thin.

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 schema documents all 12 parameters including enums, defaults (impact/probability default to medium, status to identified), and formats. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighboring write tools like update_project_risk or bulk_create, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the required scope ('Requires project_risks:write scope'). There is no indication of when to use this versus update_project_risk, bulk_create, or list_project_risks, and no prerequisites or preconditions are described.

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