Api cwes update

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds nothing beyond them—it doesn't state what a full update overwrites, whether omitted fields are cleared (full PUT semantics), or what the body contains. The phrase 'viewed or edited' even blurs the write-only nature of this endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted; but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient signal.

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 two-parameter write tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, an agent needs to know what the body should contain and that the id identifies the target CWE. None of that is present, so the definition is inadequate to call 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%, so the description must explain the required 'id' and the free-form 'body' object. It mentions neither, leaving the undocumented parameters entirely unguided—the boldest possible gap for a mutation tool.

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 a generic auto-generated phrase: 'allows CWEs to be viewed or edited.' It loosely names the resource (CWEs) but the verb is vague and conflates read and write, and it does nothing to distinguish this update endpoint from siblings like cwes_create, cwes_partial_update, cwes_retrieve, or cwes_destroy.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this over cwes_partial_update (partial vs full update), cwes_create, or cwes_retrieve. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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