Api asset capabilities update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing — no mention of what fields are replaced, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what the API returns. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero 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?

It is short, but the brevity is pure under-specification rather than efficiency: a single identifier token with no front-loaded purpose, no scoping, and no usable 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?

For a mutation endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description should explain the payload contract and return behavior. It provides none of this, leaving the tool effectively unusable without trial and error.

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% and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, which is precisely the case where the description must explain the payload shape, 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 is the raw operation identifier 'api_asset_capabilities_update' repeated verbatim, with no verb-plus-resource phrasing an agent could act on. It is a tautology of the tool name and distinguishes nothing from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_asset_capabilities_partial_update or _create.

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, when not to, or how it differs from the many sibling update/partial_update/create/destroy variants on asset capabilities. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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