Api chat sessions 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 beyond that: no indication of what a successful update returns, whether it replaces or merges chat session state, or what auth/ownership constraints apply.

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 padding, but it is not front-loaded on the actual operation and spends its only substantive clause on a different endpoint's feature. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry the entire burden and does not. An agent gets no information about the update payload shape or the effect of the call beyond what the bare annotations imply.

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%; the only parameter documentation anywhere is the raw type. The id is self-evident, but the body is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties=true and neither schema nor description lists any valid field, so an agent cannot construct a valid payload from this definition.

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 resource rather than the operation: "ViewSet for chat sessions with streaming message endpoint" never says this call updates a chat session by id. The only concrete phrase points at the streaming message endpoint, which is a sibling tool (ciso_assistant_api_chat_sessions_message_create), so an agent could be actively misdirected.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no distinction from chat_sessions_partial_update, chat_sessions_retrieve, or chat_sessions_message_create. The one hint present (streaming message endpoint) confuses rather than routes, since it names behavior belonging to a different tool.

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