scf_add_custom_risk_control

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

The description adds permission context ('editor+ role') and a prerequisite ('control must already be scoped') beyond what the annotations provide. Since readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with a non-destructive write operation, there is no contradiction.

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?

Two telegraphic sentences, with the core operation and role in the first and the key prerequisite in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The definition covers operation, permission, and prerequisite, and the schema provides complete parameter semantics. It does not describe success/error response, but for a simple additive link operation with no output schema this is a minor gap.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including UUID format, examples, and source tool names. The description itself adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise action ('Link a scoped control to a custom risk') and specifies the operation type (write) and required role. The verb 'Link' and the noun phrases distinguish it from sibling list/remove operations without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: the control must already be scoped (in-scope) for the organization. It also indicates the editor+ role requirement. It does not explicitly name an alternative for unscoped controls, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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