scf_trigger_vendor_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation requiring 'editor+ role', asynchronous (HTTP 202), and returns 'assessment_id + job_id'. It also mentions replacing a deprecated trigger, adding lifecycle context. It could improve by noting idempotency or error states, but is adequate.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, includes behavioral notes, and directs to the follow-up tool. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, async nature, role requirement, HTTP status, return fields, and polling advice. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but is fairly complete for a trigger tool.

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% (all 6 parameters described in schema). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond stating return fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter's role.

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 tool's purpose: 'Queue an AI vendor security assessment (write — editor+ role, async, HTTP 202).' It specifies the action (queue a vendor assessment), the resource (vendor security assessment), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Replaces the deprecated DPSIA trigger' and directing to poll a specific tool for status.

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 provides context for when to use: it's for triggering a vendor security assessment and replaces a deprecated trigger. It also advises polling 'scf_get_vendor_assessment_status' for follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., vendor must exist) or when not to use, but the purpose is clear.

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