put_risk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that partial updates are supported so only changed fields need to be sent, but it never explains the destructive/overwrite consequences or the auth requirements implied by a mutation.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the partial-update rule. The duplicated first sentence ('Update a risk. Update a risk using its unique identifier.') is the only waste.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the update and partial-update semantics but omits return behavior, permission requirements, and the relations expansion parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps given the mutation's complexity.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0%, but the description names the key body fields (name, description, classification, custom fields), partially compensating. It says nothing about the required path riskId or the 'with' query relations parameter, so a meaningful portion of the parameters remain undocumented by the description.

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 ('Update a risk') and pins the identity mechanism ('using its unique identifier'), which cleanly distinguishes it from post_risk, get_risk, and delete_risk. The opening two sentences say the same thing twice, but the target operation is unambiguous.

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 choose this over alternatives such as post_batch_update_risks for bulk edits, nor any prerequisites (permissions, whether the risk must exist, restore_risk for deleted ones). The partial-update note hints at how to call it but not when.

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