Api risk acceptances draft create

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds nothing about what a draft is, who may create one, or what happens on repeat calls. Worse, 'viewed or edited' suggests read/update behavior for what is a create endpoint, actively muddying the mutation profile.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 tool with no output schema, an undocumented required parameter and a large set of near-identical siblings needs far more than a generic 'viewed or edited' sentence. An agent cannot tell from this definition what the tool creates or when to pick 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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — notably it does not explain why a create/draft endpoint requires an 'id' (presumably the parent risk acceptance). Full compensation was required here and none is provided.

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 does not state creation of a draft — the operation the name and required 'id' parameter imply. It is a generic, near-tautological restatement that fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like risk_acceptances_create, submit_create, accept_create or partial_update.

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 draft-create endpoint versus the many other risk_acceptances operations (create, submit, accept, reject, revoke, update). The only usage signal ('viewed or edited') points away from the create semantics of the tool.

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