create_grc_risk

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false), the description adds only '[Write]', which is redundant. It does not disclose non-idempotency, validation rules, or what the response contains. No additional behavioral context is offered.

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 a single, short sentence plus a minimal '[Write]' marker. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains zero unnecessary 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?

For a simple create operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention that each call creates a distinct record, possible return values, or any prerequisites beyond the schema, leaving a moderate 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?

The input schema describes all 6 parameters with full coverage (100%), including names and descriptions. The tool description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new GRC risk entry' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_grc_risks and get_grc_risk. There is no ambiguity about what operation this performs.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create verb and the sibling set (list/get only) make it clear this is the tool for adding a new risk. Context is clear, though no direct comparison is provided.

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