Accept Risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that 'dryRun defaults true', which hints at a safe default but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, reversibility, required permissions, output).

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 description is extremely short but at the expense of completeness. While concise, it fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior.

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 tool's domain (security risk acceptance) and the lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, what the dryRun flag controls, or what happens after execution.

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?

The description adds value only for the 'dryRun' parameter by noting its default value. With 0% schema description coverage, the other three parameters (findingId, notes, reason) are left completely unexplained in both the schema and 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?

The description 'Accept Risk' is essentially a tautology of the title and provides minimal clarity. It does not specify what 'accepting risk' entails in the context of ArmorCode, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'armorcode_mitigate_finding' or 'armorcode_suppress_finding'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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