Propose control changes and retest criteria for selected risk IDs without applying them, enabling evidence-based selection and owner/rollback assignment.
Propose control changes and retest criteria for selected risk IDs. No changes are applied; select proposals against actual evidence and assign owners/rollback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| risk_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still earns credit by reinforcing 'No changes are applied' and adding the downstream workflow expectation (select against evidence, assign owners/rollback).
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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense, packing three separate directives (no-apply, evidence selection, ownership/rollback) into one clause chain, but nothing is wasted.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves real gaps: what a 'proposal' contains, what 'retest criteria' means, and what the response looks like with no output schema to explain returns.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of meaning. 'Selected risk IDs' confirms the parameter's intent but adds nothing about the 1-10 item limit or the string constraints 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?
States a specific verb and object: 'Propose control changes and retest criteria for selected risk IDs.' That is concrete enough to separate it from mutating siblings like build_audit_plan or investigate_risk, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
'No changes are applied; select proposals against actual evidence and assign owners/rollback' implies this is a review/drafting step that feeds a human decision, but it never says when to choose this over investigating or planning, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.