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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the write footprint ('creates one ProjectRisk row and never touches existing risks'), that analysis tooling will not mutate what is created here, and that the caller needs project write access. This is solid added context; it stops short of describing the response or duplicate-handling behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=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?

Dense but well ordered: what it records, the sibling exclusion, the side-effect profile, then the optional advanced fields. The main waste is the verbatim restatement of the two enum value lists, which already exist in the schema as structured data.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description supplies what a caller actually needs: write-access prerequisite, additive side effects, non-interference from analysis tools, and the meaning of the optional scheduling parameters. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning on top: impactDays applies to EACH affected task, affectedTaskIds must be tasks in the same project, and probability/impactDays/affectedTaskIds are a coupled trio enabling the Monte Carlo run rather than three independent knobs. The severity and category values are restated from the schema enums, which is redundant.

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 ('Record a risk on a project's risk register') and immediately draws the boundary against the most confusable sibling: a risk is a 'might happen', while a problem that already happened belongs in create_issue. An agent can route correctly without opening either 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 when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative rule (create_issue for realized problems) and clarifies the relationship to analyze_project_risks. It also names the downstream condition that makes the optional schedule fields worth supplying (the Monte Carlo schedule risk run).

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