Api comments partial update

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description contributes nothing beyond them – it does not say what fields can be changed, whether omitted fields are preserved (the point of a partial update), or what permissions are required.

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?

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose or structure to speak of since the text is a single name token.

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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description must carry substantial explanatory weight but carries none. It is completely inadequate given the complexity of an idempotency-sensitive partial update.

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 compensates for none of it. With two parameters (id required, body optional), the description says nothing about identifier format or what 'body' represents, leaving the agent strictly worse off than the raw schema.

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 just 'api_comments_partial_update', a verbatim restatement of the tool name. It implies a partial update of a comment object but adds no resource context, no scope, and does not differentiate this from sibling tools like ciso_assistant_api_comments_update or ciso_assistant_api_comments_partial_update variants.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to use this versus update, create, or retrieve.

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