Api crq quantitative risk hypotheses partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds zero behavioral context: nothing about required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved (the defining trait of a PATCH), validation rules, or side effects on linked simulations.

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?

Extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is no statement at all.

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 an untyped body object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage depends entirely on the description, which supplies nothing. An agent cannot know what payload shape to send.

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 there are two parameters (id, body). The description says nothing about the id being the hypothesis UUID or about the free-form body object, leaving both entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 identifier restated verbatim: 'api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_partial_update'. It encodes a verb (partial update) and a resource (CRQ quantitative risk hypotheses) only because the name does, not because the description explains anything. An agent gets no statement of what a hypothesis is or what fields a PATCH accepts.

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 indication of when to use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_update, _create, or the CRQ scenarios/studies siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no alternatives named.

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