risk_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The statement that omitted fields retain current values is genuinely useful and discloses the partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, immediacy of changes, or how clear_max_order and idempotency_key interact with the update, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action immediately and includes the key partial-update caveat efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 state-changing tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description leaves out critical operational context: when to choose this over risk_get, prerequisites, permission implications, and the behavior of fields like clear_max_order and idempotency_key. The existence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only provides generic 'omitted fields retain current values' semantics, which helps interpret null defaults but does not explain the eight parameters individually or clarify meanings beyond their titles. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple risk-limit 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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and a clear resource ('account risk limits'), and it adds the important patch-style behavior that omitted fields are retained. It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling risk_get, which is a read operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate the limit fields.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_get, nor any prerequisites, permissions, or conditions. The verb 'Change' implies use for modifying risk limits, but the agent is left to infer selection and invocation context on its own.

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