scf_add_custom_risk_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the write operation, required role, and precondition (scoped control). However, it does not describe success behavior, idempotency, or possible error conditions, leaving some gaps for a transaction-agnostic agent.

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 description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus a brief parenthetical and a clarifying follow-up. Every word carries meaning, and the most critical information (action, role, precondition) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, or confirmation behavior, which could be useful for an agent orchestrating a workflow.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_scoped_controls'). The description adds context about linking and scoping but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Link' and clearly identifies the resources ('scoped control', 'custom risk'), differentiating it from sibling tools like scf_remove_custom_risk_control and scf_list_custom_risk_controls. It also notes the write nature and required role.

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 states a clear prerequisite ('control must already be scoped'), but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The contextual implication is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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