Api crq quantitative risk scenarios 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 contributes nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a full replacement or merge, whether fields omitted from body are cleared, or whether any permission/simulation re-run side effect occurs.

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 token string, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded purpose statement because there is no content at all. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is contributed either.

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 endpoint with an unconstrained request body, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description supplies none of the information an agent needs to call it correctly or predict its effect. The gap is total, not marginal.

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 offers no compensation. The `body` parameter is an unconstrained anyOf object, so the agent has no way to learn which fields of a quantitative risk scenario are updatable; only the bare `id` requirement is evident from the schema itself.

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 literally the tool identifier repeated ("api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_update"), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. The name alone hints at updating a CRQ quantitative risk scenario, but the description adds no verb-phrase statement of effect or scope, and does not differentiate this from sibling partial_update or batch_action_create.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives among siblings (crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_partial_update vs _update vs _retrieve). An agent must 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.