scf_accept_risk

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further, disclosing that it marks the caller as approver with a current timestamp, captures rationale and expiry, renews existing acceptances, and returns 403 for a platform key with no associated user. It omits detail on reversibility or partial-failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause adds a genuine behavior (write/admin classification, approver recording, renewal, exception, auth failure). It is dense but not padded; the middle sentence fragments are slightly clipped but readable.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the admin privilege requirement, the side effects (approver recording, timestamp, expiry), and a specific error path (403 on platform keys). That is nearly everything an agent needs; only the response shape or reversibility would add more.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with formats, patterns, and validation rules. The description's mention of 'the rationale and expiry' only restates what the schema already conveys, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Accept a risk') and then enumerates its distinct behaviors: recording an approver, renewing an accepted risk, and accepting a standards exception. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like scf_create_risk and scf_update_risk_assessment.

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 description names the concrete situations of use — initial acceptance, renewal of an accepted risk, and standards exceptions — so an agent knows when to reach for it versus creating or updating a risk. It does not name alternative tools or an explicit 'when not to use' condition, so it falls short of a full 5.

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