post_risk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project-scoping context and says nothing about permissions, duplicate-risk behavior, or what the write affects, which is all the agent gets beyond structured fields.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Create a new risk within a project') largely restates the first, so one of the two sentences does not earn its place.

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 nested-object mutation with three required fields and no output schema, the description omits required-field guidance, classification lookup context, and any indication of what is returned. It is far too thin for the complexity of the payload.

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 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate, yet it only implies a project via 'within a project' and never mentions the required name or risk_classification_id fields. Nested property descriptions are generic boilerplate, so the description adds no real semantic value.

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 risk') and adds the scope ('within a project'). It does not differentiate from siblings such as put_risk, delete_risk, or post_batch_update_risks, but the create action is unambiguous for a single-resource tool.

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 versus put_risk (update) or post_batch_update_risks (bulk), and no prerequisites such as needing a valid risk_classification_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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