Api crq quantitative risk hypotheses create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, what the request body should contain, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on duplicate submission.

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?

It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope to anchor the agent.

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?

A creation tool for CRQ hypotheses with a freeform body and no output schema requires the description to explain the payload shape and creation semantics. None of that is present, leaving the definition effectively unusable without guessing.

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?

The single 'body' parameter has an untyped anyOf object/null schema with 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero clarification of its structure or accepted fields. Since there is a real parameter with no documentation anywhere, the agent is left guessing what payload to send.

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 is the literal identifier string 'api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_create' repeated verbatim, adding no prose explanation of what the tool does. An agent gets no more information from the description than from the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the sibling hypotheses_batch_action_create, hypotheses_list, or hypotheses_update tools. Selection must be inferred entirely from the name.

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