anon_post_risks_evaluate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context (auth requirement, that all rules are recomputed, and that the response mirrors the list endpoint), but it never explains what the destructive recalculation does to existing risk state such as ignore/restore flags set by sibling tools.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. Slightly redundant in repeating '立即重算' twice and appending a raw HTTP path, but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the note that the response matches the list interface is valuable, and auth derivation is explained. However, for a destructive mutation the description omits what state gets reset or invalidated, leaving a meaningful 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description nonetheless clarifies that no projectId is needed because the project is resolved from the current API key, which correctly anticipates the empty 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('立即重算风险' / immediately recalculate risks) and specifies scope ('全部风险规则' / all risk rules). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by noting the response matches the list interface, but it never names a sibling outright.

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 gives a prerequisite ('需项目成员身份' / requires project membership) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. vs anon_get_risks or the risk ignore/restore endpoints). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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