scf_create_custom_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key effects: auto-generates code and creates risk assessment record. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions beyond role, or rate limits.

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?

Description is concise (one sentence plus parenthetical) and clearly states the action, role, and automatic behaviors. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing key parameters or effects.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and auto-generation details. Missing hint about return value (likely created risk ID) but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema, such as the role requirement, but does not elaborate on specific parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a custom org-defined risk, specifies it's a write operation requiring editor+ role, and mentions auto-generation of code and assessment record. It distinguishes from other risk tools by the term 'custom org-defined', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling scf_create_risk.

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?

Description indicates when to use (to create a custom org-defined risk) and the required role (editor+), but does not provide when not to use or mention alternative tools like scf_create_risk for standard risks.

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