scf_trigger_vendor_assessment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the editor+ role requirement, asynchronous behavior, HTTP 202 semantics, and the response shape (assessment_id + job_id). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs that structured fields do not convey. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core purpose with key traits, legacy replacement note, and return value with the follow-up call. The most decision-relevant facts (verb, resource, async, role) are front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return contract (assessment_id + job_id) and the required next step (poll status). Role, async behavior, and response semantics are all stated, and all 6 parameters are fully documented in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed: each parameter has an explanatory description with provenance ('obtain from scf_list_organizations'), defaults, and max lengths already in the schema.

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 ('Queue') plus a distinct resource ('AI vendor security assessment') and adds behavioral qualifiers (write, async, HTTP 202). It distinguishes itself from siblings such as scf_trigger_vendor_research, scf_trigger_evidence_assessment, and scf_trigger_window_assessment by explicitly scoping to vendor assessments.

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 gives clear usage context: it replaces the deprecated DPSIA trigger and directs the agent to poll scf_get_vendor_assessment_status afterward. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives for when NOT to use it versus bulk/research sibling tools, but the context provided is sufficient for correct invocation.

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