Api security exceptions 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 needs to add what a write does. Instead it adds nothing — no mention of required permissions, validation of the exception payload, or that repeated calls create duplicates (non-idempotent).

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 short sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is copy-pasted boilerplate that is not front-loaded with any actionable information about creation.

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 create endpoint with an unspecified free-form body and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the expected payload shape or the created entity. Neither is present, leaving the caller unable to build a request with confidence.

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 'body' parameter is an opaque additionalProperties object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what fields a security exception requires. With the schema contributing nothing and the description contributing nothing, the agent cannot construct a valid payload.

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 is the generic DRF docstring 'allows security exceptions to be viewed or edited', which does not state the create operation the tool name and route promise. It restates boilerplate rather than a specific verb+resource, and 'viewed or edited' actually points away from creation.

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 the many siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_security_exceptions_list, _update, or _batch_action_create. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this creates a single exception.

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