patch_w_asset_suppress_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a PATCH/update operation but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens to existing suppression data. For a mutation tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 three short sentences with no filler and front-loads the core action and endpoint. The typo 'suppres' slightly hurts polish, but every sentence contributes useful request-assembly 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?

Although an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, the description omits essential behavioral context for a PATCH operation: what exactly can be updated, what route IDs identify, what filters and pagination parameters are supported, and what the request body should contain. The generic schema makes these omissions more costly.

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 0% and all four parameters are generic containers, so the description's mapping of route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, headers, and payload to body adds real meaning. However, it still does not identify concrete parameter names, accepted filter keys, pagination fields, or required payload properties, leaving the agent with only high-level placement guidance.

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 ('Update'), a resource ('suppres vulnerability'), and the exact endpoint ('PATCH /w/asset/suppress_vulnerability'). It is distinguishable from sibling GET/POST/DELETE tools by the HTTP method, though it never explicitly names an alternative or clarifies the exact entity being 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like post_w_asset_suppress_vulnerability, delete_d_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id, or get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id. The description only explains how to assemble the HTTP request, not when it is the appropriate choice.

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