create_risk_event

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

No annotations provided. The description only notes that impact_function_name must be a distribution-object function. It does not disclose that the tool inserts a formula into target_cell, nor any side effects or authorization needs. The agent lacks behavioral context.

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 concise, one sentence. However, it could be slightly more structured without losing content. It front-loads the main action.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain impact_parameters, dry_run, or the role of target_cell. The agent would likely need to infer or have prior knowledge.

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%. The description mentions probability and impact_function_name but ignores other parameters (workbook, sheet, target_cell, impact_parameters, dry_run). Essential details for correct invocation are missing.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: building a VoseRiskEvent formula with probability and impact_object. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_aggregate or create_copula.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_aggregate). Does not mention prerequisites or context for selecting this tool beyond the function name constraint.

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