Api ebios rm elementary actions update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of what the body must contain, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what a full vs. partial update entails—so it does not contradict but also does not inform.

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 waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy—nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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 tool with an untyped free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations coverage of payload semantics, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what fields belong in the body or how the update behaves.

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 neither parameter (id, body) is documented in the description. The body is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what to send, and it delivers nothing.

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 literally the tool name restated as a string ('api_ebios_rm_elementary_actions_update'), conveying only that this is an update to ebios RM elementary actions. It adds no verb-plus-resource detail beyond what the name already tells the agent, and gives no differentiation from sibling update tools like elementary_actions_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling partial_update, create, or retrieve variants. The agent is left to infer everything from the endpoint name.

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