Create Exception

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions the dryRun default but does not disclose other behaviors like whether the operation is destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a creation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 very short (6 words), which is concise but at the cost of informativeness. Key information is missing, so brevity does not serve the purpose well. It could be considered under-specified rather than well-structured.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain return values, error states, permissions, or how the dryRun affects the operation. The tool's complexity demands much more context.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for the dryRun parameter (defaults to true). Other required parameters (name, description, startDate, endDate, productName) are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on formats or constraints.

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 specifies 'Create risk register exception' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing the tool from sibling tools like 'get_exception' and 'list_exceptions' by the action 'create'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other action tools like 'accept_risk' or 'mark_false_positive'.

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 only usage guidance is 'dryRun defaults true', which hints at a preview mode. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'accept_risk' or 'suppress_finding', nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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