Api document attachments update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so this is a mutating call, yet the description frames it as "serving" a file, which reads as a safe retrieval. That is a direct conflict rather than added context, and the description says nothing about what the update actually changes, permissions required, or what is returned.

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 short sentence that is technically front-loaded, so there is no bloat to trim; the problem is that the content is under-specified and wrong rather than verbose.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what field/state is being updated and what the response contains. Instead it leaves the agent unable to distinguish this from the read/file-serving siblings, making the definition inadequate for safe invocation.

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?

The single required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains whether it is the attachment id, the document id, or a parent record — the most important semantic question for this call. It does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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?

"API endpoint for serving document attachment files" describes a retrieval/serving action, but the tool is named and titled "update", so the stated purpose doesn't match the operation being invoked. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the many document-attachment siblings (e.g. ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_file_retrieve, _retrieve, _partial_update).

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. Worse, the single sentence points an agent toward reading/serving a file, which is the opposite of what an update tool should be selected for.

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