Api ebios rm attack paths update

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds zero context: no permissions required, no note on which fields update, no side effects (e.g. recalculation of risk) and no note that body is optional.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single token carries no information an agent could act on.

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?

A mutation endpoint with a free-form body, no output schema, and no param documentation needs substantial description; here nothing is provided beyond the name, so the definition is effectively unusable without guessing.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description supplies nothing – 'id' is undefined (string id of what?) and 'body' is an untyped free-form object with no field hints, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid request.

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 name with underscores spaced out, restating 'api ebios rm attack paths update' verbatim. It never says what an attack path is, what 'update' changes, or how it differs from the sibling _partial_update and _create 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required id, and no differentiation from sibling ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_partial_update or _create, which an agent cannot distinguish from this entry.

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