Api ebios rm elementary actions partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds no context on top of them — no mention of what fields are merged, what is overwritten by a partial update, or auth/permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, so it is not a 1, but it contributes nothing.

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 one identifier with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, and the reader learns nothing that the tool name did not already say.

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 a completely undocumented request body, no output schema, and only hint-level annotations, the description should define the payload semantics and merge behavior. It supplies none of that, leaving the definition unusable without external API documentation.

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% and the 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent has no idea which elementary-action fields are accepted. The description does not compensate at all — it names neither the id nor any updatable field.

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 just the endpoint slug restated: 'api_ebios_rm_elementary_actions_partial_update'. An agent can decode that this touches EBIOS RM elementary actions, but the string offers no verb, resource phrasing, or scope statement beyond the identifier itself, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools like ..._update or ..._retrieve.

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 zero guidance on when to use this partial-update endpoint versus the full ..._update, ..._create, or ..._retrieve siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The description is a bare identifier, so it gives the agent nothing to route on.

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