update_risk

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: impact, likelihood, and score are rejected and recalculated by a business rule on write, and writes require WRITE_ENABLED=true. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects and gating requirements an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact: one sentence identifies the operation, and the following NOTE captures the critical field and write-gate caveats without any filler.

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 mutation tool with complete schema coverage and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies the missing operational caveats: unsupported fields, business-rule recalculation, and the write enablement requirement. Nothing essential is left unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters and allowed fields. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance by warning that impact, likelihood, and score are not accepted, even though common risk updates might otherwise attempt them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update a Risk by sys_id. It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_risk, create_risk, and list_risks, and it immediately clarifies which fields cannot be updated.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance by stating the tool updates an existing Risk identified by sys_id and requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the mutation context is unambiguous.

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