scf_create_compensating_control

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write. The description adds value by explicitly stating '(write — editor role)', which clarifies the permission requirement, and it mentions the default effectiveness rating ('default partial'), which is not present in the schema annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the role and default behavior. There is no waste; every clause contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for a create operation with a well-documented schema.

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 description is complete for a create tool with no output schema. It explains the core purpose, the role requirement, and the default effectiveness. It relies on the schema to document parameter details, which it does well. It could mention that this creates a new record, but the name and verb make that clear. Overall, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic clarity by summarizing the core fields: gap_description is 'what the gap is', compensating_control is 'what offsets it', and effectiveness_rating is 'how effective that is'. It also notes the default for effectiveness. However, it does not add new meaning for org_id, vendor_id, or risk_reduction_notes beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'compensating control' with the specific context 'for a vendor gap'. It also lists the key inputs (what the gap is, what offsets it, effectiveness) which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update/delete tools, so it relies on the name and context for differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for creating a new compensating control by using 'Record', and it provides context ('for a vendor gap'). It does not explicitly state when to use it versus scf_update_compensating_control or scf_delete_compensating_control, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the editor role. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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