Api risk assessments update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of full-replacement vs merge semantics, which fields the body may contain, permission requirements, or side effects. No contradiction with the annotations, but no added value either.

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 with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However brevity here stems from under-specification rather than tight writing, and the most decision-relevant fact (that this updates an existing assessment) is buried in a hedge.

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 mutation endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no annotation detail about payload expectations, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call. It should at minimum state that the body is a risk-assessment object replacing the existing record.

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 0% and the body parameter is an untyped open object (anyOf object/null), so the description carries the full burden and explains nothing about which risk-assessment fields are accepted or what the id refers to. The only hint is the resource name itself.

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 names the resource (risk assessments) but the verb is a hedge: 'viewed or edited' does not identify this as the update/mutation operation the tool name and annotations imply. With siblings risk_assessments_retrieve, partial_update, and update in the same namespace, an agent cannot tell from this text which one performs a full edit by id.

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 statement of when to use this instead of risk_assessments_retrieve or risk_assessments_partial_update, and no prerequisites or preconditions. Worse, 'viewed or edited' suggests it might serve read purposes, which is misleading when a dedicated retrieve tool exists.

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