create_grc_risk

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal value by including '[Write]', which is redundant. It does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, side effects (e.g., triggering workflows), or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

Extremely concise with one sentence and a tag, no wasted words. However, it is slightly too brief for a tool with 6 parameters; additional context would be beneficial without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Description is minimal and does not explain what a GRC risk is, the outcome of creation, or any necessary relationships. For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context to ensure correct usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'GRC risk entry', making the tool's purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling creation tools like create_incident or create_record beyond the resource name, which is already implied by the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other create tools or list_grc_risks. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when it's appropriate to create a risk vs. update an existing one.

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