scf_update_risk_assessment

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: this is a write operation requiring editor role, and it performs partial updates ('Only passed fields change'). It does not disclose side effects, validation failures, or what happens when fields are omitted, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and role are front-loaded, followed immediately by the partial-update contract. Every phrase earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, the description, combined with the fully documented schema and annotations, covers the essential semantics: required identifiers (org_id, risk_code), partial update behavior, and allowed field values. It does not describe return output or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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 input schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds little beyond confirming that inherent/residual likelihood/impact are 1–5 and dates are included, which is marginal over the schema's own field descriptions.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a scored risk by its code', and enumerates the affected fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scf_update_custom_risk, but 'scored risk' and 'risk_code' are specific enough to identify the operation.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, nor does it mention alternatives like scf_update_custom_risk or scf_create_risk. 'Only passed fields change' implies a partial-update workflow, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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