Api risk matrices import yaml create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result is a draft matrix rather than a published one. It omits what happens on duplicate import, whether validation errors abort creation, and whether permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the outcome (new draft matrix) and the input (YAML library file) both land immediately.

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 mutating, open-world create endpoint with no output schema and no parameters, the definition should at least clarify the payload transport and what the returned draft looks like. It covers the outcome state (draft) but leaves the mechanics of the YAML import underspecified.

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 schema declares zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the actual input. It names the artifact type ('library YAML file') but never says how the YAML is supplied (request body/upload) — a real gap for an empty-schema endpoint. Slightly below the zero-parameter baseline because the payload mechanism stays unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb pair (import + create) and the resource (a new draft risk matrix) plus the source artifact type (library YAML file). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like create_draft_from (draft from an existing matrix) or create_draft_create, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Import a library YAML file' — an agent can infer this is for bootstrapping a matrix from an external YAML definition. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the related draft workflow (publish_draft, discard_draft, save_draft) or the alternative create_draft_from.

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