assets_bulk_update_vulnerability_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the effect (enable/disable) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. The bulk-update nature and POST endpoint are mentioned, but no deeper behavioral context is provided.

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 concise and well-structured: a title, one-sentence summary, endpoint, and example. The example is useful and not redundant. Minor redundancy between the title and first sentence slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the nested request_data object, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides an example but does not explain return values, error handling, scope of the bulk update, or whether the operation replaces or adds to existing settings. This is insufficient for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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. The example request body illustrates the structure of request_data, including test_names and status, and shows the enum values for status. However, it lacks explanations of each parameter's full semantics, such as whether test_names is required or how multiple items are handled.

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 function: 'Enable or disable vulnerability tests.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets_get_vulnerability_tests, which is a read operation. The endpoint and example further clarify the bulk-update nature.

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 description implies usage through the example request body, showing how to enable/disable test names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not directly guided.

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