Start assessment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it consumes org credits, dispatches an asynchronous pipeline, and requires assessments:write. It could go further on irreversibility of the credit spend or failure semantics, but this is solid added value.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: action, side effects, permission, and return value. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 credit-consuming, asynchronous mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: cost, required scope, and what is returned (assessmentPid), which is necessary since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating blocking/async behavior expectations or what happens on partial failure, which would have made it complete.

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 67% (name and artifactPids documented, projectPid bare), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as artifact-count limits or pid format, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning beyond 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+resource: 'Start a risk assessment on a project', which clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like air_list_assessments and air_get_assessment. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related write siblings such as air_create_assessment_draft, air_retry_assessment, or air_run_assessment_from_file, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 notes the required scope (assessments:write) but gives no guidance on when to use this versus air_create_assessment_draft, air_retry_assessment, air_run_assessment_from_file, or air_run_full_assessment_pipeline. With four sibling tools that all run or prepare assessments, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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