update_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavior context—partial/merge update semantics ('send only the fields to change') and automatic normalization of localized IDs—but says nothing about permissions, validation failures on bad IDs, reversibility, or what is returned.

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 tight clauses with no filler, and the core operational instruction (send only changed fields) is front-loaded before the ID-discovery hint.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: partial update semantics and where to source foreign-key IDs. It stops short of stating error/validation behavior or the response shape, which leaves a modest gap.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description still earns credit above baseline by explaining the partial-update semantics for the optional fields and mapping the five *Id parameters to specific get_reference_data entity lookups, which the schema does not convey.

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 risk fields) plus an operation-shape constraint: send only the fields to change. This separates it cleanly from create_risk, get_risk, and get_project_risks among the siblings without needing to open the 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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use get_reference_data with the exact entity names (riskstatuses, risktypes, riskimpacts, riskprobabilities, risklevels) to obtain the IDs this tool needs. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use create_risk for new risks) or prerequisites like permissions, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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