Api risk acceptances create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing call, but the description adds nothing about what a create does, what fields a risk acceptance requires, what happens on failure, or how this interacts with the accept/submit workflow. Worse, 'viewed' suggests a read capability on what is a write endpoint.

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 a single short sentence, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; the one sentence present is boilerplate that conveys no actionable information.

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 mutation endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no required params needs the description to explain the payload and the workflow. None of that is present, so an agent cannot safely invoke it.

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?

There is one parameter (body) typed as a free-form object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides zero information about its shape, required risk fields, or any example payload. This is the case where description must compensate and it does not.

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 says the endpoint allows risk acceptance 'to be viewed or edited', which is generic Django-REST boilerplate and never states that this tool creates a risk acceptance, despite the name and its sibling create/accept/draft endpoints. The resource is named, but the operation is wrong or at best ambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus the many closely related siblings (risk_acceptances_accept_create, draft_create, submit_create, partial_update, update). The agent is given no routing signal at all, and the 'viewed or edited' phrasing actively pushes toward the wrong choice.

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