Api applied controls merge create

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description's job is to say what mutation actually occurs — and it does not. It never states whether source applied controls are deleted, archived, or have their links/evidences reattached to the target, nor whether the merge is reversible. The terminal "See" hints at documentation that was never included.

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?

It is brief, but brevity here comes from truncation rather than discipline: the second sentence is a bare "See" with no referent, which is dead weight and signals an incomplete definition. The one substantive clause is front-loaded, which saves it from a 1.

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 that consolidates several records into one, with an empty input schema and no output schema, an agent needs to know what input shape is expected and what happens to the merged sources. Neither is provided, and the description is visibly cut off. Inadequate for the operation's 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?

The input schema declares zero properties with additionalProperties=false, so there is truly nothing for the schema to document. The baseline for 0 params applies, but a merge operation with an empty schema is surprising and the description does not explain how source IDs and the target ID are supplied. A 3 reflects that it neither helps nor misleads.

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?

"Merge N source applied controls into 1 target" names a specific verb (merge) and resource (applied controls), which is enough to distinguish it from the many list/retrieve siblings. However the sentence that follows is literally just "See" — a truncated dangling reference — so the scope description ends mid-thought. It is a specific but incomplete statement of purpose.

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 indication of when to merge rather than update/duplicate/destroy (e.g. ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_duplicate_create, _update, _destroy, or the parallel _policies_merge_create). No prerequisites, no exclusion criteria, and no note that the operation consumes multiple records.

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