create_risk_acceptance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the acceptance lifecycle ('active until it expires or is revoked'), the required components (owner, justification, review deadline), and how accepted objectives appear in triage. It omits some side effects like existing acceptances being overwritten, but overall provides strong behavioral context.

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 description is two tightly written paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place by contributing purpose, usage, or behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description provides solid usage and lifecycle context for a 6-parameter write operation. It could mention potential errors, idempotency, or permission requirements, but it is largely complete for an AI agent deciding when and how to invoke.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining how owner, justification, and review_by collectively define the acceptance's purpose, and clarifies that review_by forces a revisit by the deadline. This goes beyond raw schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('residual risk on a control objective'), explicitly names itself as the write counterpart to list_risk_acceptances, and clearly contrasts with mitigating risk. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (deliberate, documented acceptance decision) versus when not to (unaddressed gap), and directly recommends preferring it over leaving risk implicit. It also references the read counterpart, giving clear contextual guidance.

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