Api risk assessments duplicate create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description owes the agent context beyond that — e.g. that a copy of the referenced risk assessment is created, whether the source is modified, and what naming the copy gets. Instead it repeats 'viewed or edited', which leans toward a read operation and conflicts with readOnlyHint=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?

A single short sentence, but it is generic boilerplate that spends its only words on 'viewed or edited' rather than the duplicate semantics. Efficiency without substance is under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint taking a required id with no output schema and no parameter documentation; the description should at minimum explain that a duplicate copy is produced. The generic CRUD sentence leaves the agent unable to call it safely or predict its effect.

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 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining it. It says nothing about the id at all — not whether it identifies the source risk assessment to duplicate, nor any format or scope. Only the parameter's obviousness keeps this above 1.

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 only says it 'allows risk assessments to be viewed or edited', a generic CRUD boilerplate that never mentions duplication — the actual operation named in the tool name and title. An agent would have no way to tell this apart from list/retrieve/update siblings, and 'viewed' actively points the wrong direction for a create-style tool.

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 versus ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_create, _partial_update, _retrieve, or any of the dozens of sibling risk_assessment endpoints. The generic phrasing implies a read/edit capability rather than the duplicate action, which would misroute the agent.

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