risk_set

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

The description adds the key behavioral detail that omitted fields retain their current values, which is not present in annotations (none provided) and is essential for safe use. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as permission requirements, the role of idempotency_key, or how the clear_* flags interact with field values, leaving gaps in transparency given the lack of annotations.

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 sentence with two clauses, front-loading the main action and following with a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or off-topic information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (16 parameters, no annotations). The description fails to mention the clear_* flags, idempotency_key semantics, or any usage caveats like permission requirements. It is too sparse for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool in all scenarios.

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 schema has 16 parameters and description coverage is 0%. The description only provides general partial-update semantics ('omitted fields retain their current values') but does not explain individual parameters or compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The parameter titles in the schema do some work, but the description adds little value beyond the structured data.

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 begins with 'Change selected account risk limits', which clearly identifies the verb (change) and resource (account risk limits). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like risk_get, which is for reading rather than modifying limits.

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 phrase 'omitted fields retain their current values' provides clear context for partial updates, implicitly guiding when to use this tool (when modifying only some limits). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as risk_get for viewing limits or any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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