Api crq quantitative risk scenarios 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, so the mutation profile is known without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a partial update leaves untouched, permission requirements, or validation behavior for the opaque body. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 technically brief, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the single identifier carries no explanatory content and nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive exists.

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 destructive-capable mutation tool with a completely free-form body object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain the payload structure and update semantics. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters, and the description supplies no compensating information. The required 'id' is undocumented and the 'body' parameter (an open-ended object with additionalProperties true) is completely unexplained — an agent has no idea what fields belong there.

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 simply the operationId restated verbatim ('api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_partial_update'), which is a tautology of the name and title. An agent can only infer the resource (CRQ quantitative risk scenarios) and action (partial update) by parsing the identifier itself, not from any explanation. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling partial_update tools.

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 usage guidance is provided at all: no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools (create, update, destroy, retrieve, lec_retrieve) that compete for the same resource. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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