scf_update_compensating_control

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=falseics. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the editor-role requirement, the partial-update behavior ('Only passed fields change'), and explicitly listing the updatable fields (gap description, control text, effectiveness rating, risk-reduction notes). This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no fluff. The core action and the most important behavioral nuance (partial update) are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema cover all essentials: required IDs are specified and sourced in the schema, the update behavior is clear, and the role requirement is stated. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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%, with each parameter already documented in the schema, including how to obtain the required IDs from list tools. The description's mention of 'gap description, control text, effectiveness rating, risk-reduction notes' loosely maps to schema properties but does not add significant semantic detail beyond 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 begins with 'Update a vendor compensating control', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/delete/list tools. The parenthetical '(write — editor role)' reinforces that this is a mutating operation, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 'Only passed fields change', which clarifies partial-update semantics and tells the agent which fields are updatable. It does not explicitly name alternatives like scf_create_compensating_control or scf_delete_compensating_control, but the tool name and the sibling set make the usage context obvious.

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