Api risk scenarios object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description claims the endpoint allows scenarios to be 'edited'. That directly contradicts the declared safety profile and gives the agent no trustworthy statement of what the call actually does.

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 it is appropriately sized, but the one sentence it spends is spent on a misleading claim rather than useful specificity.

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?

With no output schema, no descriptions on the single parameter, and a large set of confusable siblings, the description should carry the burden of explaining lookup semantics and return shape. It provides none of that and instead misstates the operation as editable.

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 sole parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds nothing about the identifier format, whether it is a UUID or ref id, or what a lookup miss does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 lets risk scenarios be 'viewed or edited', which muddles a single-resource retrieve operation rather than stating a specific verb+resource. It never distinguishes this tool from siblings such as risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_object_retrieve, or risk_scenarios_update, so an agent cannot tell which one fetches one scenario 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 guidance on when to use this versus the near-identical sibling retrieve/object_retrieve/list endpoints. The only usage signal is the vague 'viewed or edited', which points in the wrong direction for a read tool.

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