scf_update_custom_risk

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating this is a metadata-only update, requires an editor+ role, and applies only provided fields. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent clear expectations of side effects and permissions.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The key action, target, permission, and partial-update behavior are all included and front-loaded.

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 covers purpose, permissions, and partial-update behavior, which is sufficient for a simple metadata update with 6 parameters documented in the schema. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the effect is clearly stated, so the gap is minor.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('custom risk definition's metadata'), and lists the exact metadata fields (title, description, category). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scf_create_custom_risk and scf_delete_custom_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?

The description implies its usage by being an update operation and notes the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are applied'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus scf_create_custom_risk or scf_delete_custom_risk, nor any exclusions.

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