Create project risk

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the required write scope, but does not warn that non-idempotency means repeated calls create duplicate risks, nor describe side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite following. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and auth requirement but says nothing about what is returned or what happens on duplicate creation. Annotations plus the rich schema carry most of the burden, leaving this adequate but thin.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters (including enums for impact, status, category, probability) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project risk'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_project_task or create_project_milestone. It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope the operation, but the name/resource pairing is clear enough for selection.

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 only guidance is the permission prerequisite ('Requires project_risks:write scope'), which is useful but not usage-oriented. There is no statement of when to use this versus bulk_create or update_project_risk, so usage is only implied by the tool name.

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