Api applied controls object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the endpoint allows applied controls to be "viewed or edited," implying a write capability the annotations deny. Beyond that contradiction, no behavioral context (lookup semantics, 404 on missing id, returned shape) is added.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency – nothing useful is front-loaded.

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 retrieve tool with no output schema, undocumented id parameter, and dozens of near-identical siblings, the description leaves the agent without the disambiguation or return-shape context it needs.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what the id refers to or its format. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 restates the title almost verbatim ("applied controls ... viewed or edited") without stating the concrete operation. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling variants that operate on the same resource (applied_controls_retrieve, _list, _update, _partial_update, _object_retrieve), so an agent cannot tell which to pick.

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 statement of when to use this endpoint versus the applied_controls_list, applied_controls_retrieve, or applied_controls_update siblings. The phrase "viewed or edited" is not guidance and is arguably misleading about what the tool can do.

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