Api asset class partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a partial update leaves untouched, what permissions are needed, or what happens to fields omitted from the body. For a mutation endpoint with a free-form body, this is a significant disclosure 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?

It is a single identifier with zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded summary, no verb-object sentence, and nothing for the reader to act on.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations covering semantics, and a completely undocumented free-form body needs the description to carry the full burden. Instead the description supplies no information at all, leaving an agent unable to construct a safe call.

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% for 2 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter information whatsoever. The critical 'body' parameter is an untyped anyOf object with additionalProperties=true, meaning neither schema nor description tells an agent which fields are valid to send.

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 tool name repeated verbatim ("api_asset_class_partial_update"), so it conveys only that this is a partial update of an api asset class — information already in the name and title. It gives no indication of what fields can be changed or what the operation actually affects, and does not distinguish it from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_asset_class_update or ciso_assistant_api_asset_class_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 at all about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over asset_class_update (full replace) or asset_class_create, nor what prerequisites (an existing id) are required.

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