keel_create_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavior itself. It usefully discloses the return value (new risk id) and the 1-5 scale for likelihood/impact. However, it does not mention validation, defaulting behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on invalid input, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 primary action and resource, followed by the most decision-relevant details (return value and scale). No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 straightforward create tool with a rich input schema, the description covers the core outcome (risk created, id returned) and the key value constraint. It is slightly thin on preconditions and error behavior, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly given the detailed schema.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds the 1-5 scale context, but that is already present in the schema descriptions for likelihood and impact. It does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Add') with a specific resource ('risk to the workspace risk register') and explicitly notes the return value. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like keel_create_task and keel_create_policy without needing to inspect schemas.

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 makes it clear this tool is for creating risks in the risk register, which is sufficient context for selecting it over sibling create tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource-based framing provides clear usage context.

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