Api risk scenarios create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds nothing about what a create does, what the payload must contain, or side effects. The 'viewed or edited' phrasing also leans toward read semantics, which is inconsistent with a create endpoint's non-idempotent write behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. The problem is that the content is boilerplate that conveys no usable information rather than being over-long.

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 write endpoint with an unspecified request body, no output schema, and a large family of near-identical siblings leaves the agent with no way to construct a valid call. The description covers none of what is needed: payload shape, required fields, or relationship to sibling CRUD endpoints.

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 parameter is an untyped body (anyOf object/null) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no information about its contents. Nothing tells the agent what fields a risk scenario payload requires, so the parameter is entirely opaque.

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 scenarios') but the verb is a generic DRF boilerplate phrase ('viewed or edited') that does not match the actual operation, which is creation. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling endpoints (risk_scenarios_update, partial_update, list, retrieve), so an agent cannot tell what this call actually does.

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 versus ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_update, _partial_update, or _list. Worse, saying it 'allows risk scenarios to be viewed' suggests read usage, which misroutes an agent looking to create a record.

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