Api crq quantitative risk hypotheses 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 known without the description. The description adds literally nothing beyond the name — no statement of what fields are changed, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, or what authorization is needed.

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 brevity here is under-specification rather than concision — a single identifier string with no front-loaded statement of purpose or structure.

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 2-parameter mutation endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and zero schema coverage gets no compensating explanation. An agent cannot construct a valid call payload or understand the result from this definition.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails completely. The only documented parameter in prose is none: 'id' has no type/format guidance and the untyped 'body' object (anyOf object|null) is left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing at the payload shape.

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 verbatim tool identifier 'api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_update', which merely restates the name/title. An agent can infer it updates a CRQ quantitative risk hypothesis only by parsing the snake_case identifier itself, not from any prose explanation of the operation or its effect.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. that an existing hypothesis id is required), and no differentiation from sibling operations like partial_update, batch_action_create, or the scenario/study update endpoints.

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