Api ebios rm attack paths create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of required parent objects (study, kill chain, elementary action), side effects, or that the body shape is unvalidated. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a minimal-but-not-zero score.

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 with zero wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Front-loading is impossible because there is no content beyond the name.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with an open-ended request body and no output schema, and the description explains none of it. An agent cannot call this correctly without external knowledge of the EBIOS RM attack path model.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'body', documented at 0% schema coverage as a free-form object with additionalProperties true and default null. The description provides no field names, structure, or required keys, so the agent has no way to construct the payload from the definition alone.

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 tool identifier repeated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_create'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. An agent can only infer the purpose from parsing the name itself (create an attack path in the EBIOS RM module), and gets no statement of what an attack path contains or how it relates to siblings like kill_chains or elementary_actions.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to create an attack path versus using a sibling such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_batch_action_create, update, or operating_modes_save_graph_create. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context.

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