scf_update_custom_risk_control

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the editor-level auth requirement and the non-obvious side effect that changing the document clears an accepted exception's approval. It stops short of describing the return or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the consequential side effect follows immediately.

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 4-param write tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, privilege, and the key side effect. Only the response/confirmation behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% and every parameter (including the nullable document_id, its 404/422 behavior, and the source tools for org_id/scf_id/risk_code) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (set/clear) and precise resource (the standard's document on a custom risk's control link), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings scf_add_custom_risk_control and scf_remove_custom_risk_control. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 '(write — editor)' tag signals the required privilege level and the write nature, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any named alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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