Create risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the failure mode (non-raising ValidateResult with valid=False, errors[].message capped at 300 chars), that nothing is written on validation failure, and that only frontmatter is returned. This is substantially more than any annotation would convey.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the middle is bloated with internal references – an ADR UUID, feat-110, GitHub issue #204, case 5 of a workaround chain – that are noise for an agent choosing or invoking the tool. These citations dilute an otherwise efficient description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still usefully clarifies that only frontmatter (no body) is returned and that nothing is written on validation failure. Combined with the filename-derivation and validation disclosure, it is nearly complete; only the precise content format and error payload fields are left implicit.

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% for the single 'content' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: the content is 'body-only', it is 'submitted body-only content' that gets validated, and its H1 title drives the derived filename – useful semantics the schema lacks. It stops short of describing the exact content format or whether frontmatter is permitted.

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+resource ('Create a new risk') and enumerates the exact side effects: id assignment, filename derivation from the H1 title, body validation, and write to the risk base directory. An agent can distinguish this from get_rsk and the other create_* siblings without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to the follow-up tool ('use the corresponding get_rsk tool to fetch the full document afterward'), which is explicit. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance for creating a risk versus other document types, and no exclusions or prerequisites for the creation act itself, so usage is only implied.

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