create_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that localized Ids are normalized automatically, but it does not describe permissions, mutation side effects, error behavior, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by required-field guidance and a discovery hint. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes actionable information.

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 create tool with full schema descriptions, the definition covers the key invocation prerequisites and ID discovery. It is mostly complete, though without an output schema it could say more about the return value or post-create behavior.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value by reiterating required ID parameters, mapping them to reference-data entities, and noting automatic normalization of localized Ids.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Log a new risk in a project.' This clearly distinguishes creation from sibling update_risk and get_project_risks, although it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

It gives clear prerequisite guidance: TypeId, StatusId, ImpactId, ProbabilityId, and LevelId are required and should be discovered via get_reference_data with named entities. It does not explicitly say when to use update_risk instead, but creation is sufficiently implied.

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