update_application_risks

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether updates are additive or overwriting, permission requirements, or side effects like triggering alerts. Only states general purpose.

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?

Description is concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured argument documentation. No redundant information, and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the nested object parameter and existence of output schema, the description misses context about the expected structure of 'risks' and what the output contains. Lacks connection to related read tool (get_risks_overview) for workflow guidance.

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 0%, but description includes arg descriptions for all three parameters, adding format hint for app_id. However, the 'risks' parameter lacks structural detail beyond 'risk assessment configuration', leaving ambiguity about required fields.

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 clearly states the tool updates risk assessment configuration for an application, specifying the verb 'update' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_risks_overview which is read-only.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_risks_overview or other update tools. Missing explicit context for when to apply updates or prerequisites.

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