Api ebios rm feared events partial update

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, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what can be modified, whether the body is merged or replaced, what authorization is required, or what happens to fields omitted from the body. For a mutation endpoint whose payload is an opaque free-form object, this is a total transparency gap.

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 token long, so there is no wasted prose, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to structure.

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?

With a free-form body, no output schema, and only the bare safety annotations, the description would need to carry nearly all the meaning. It carries none, so an agent cannot safely construct a call to this endpoint from the definition alone.

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 anyOf object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema tells the agent nothing about which feared-event fields are patchable. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the single most important parameter completely opaque.

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 machine-generated operation id repeated verbatim, which merely restates the name/title. Only the identifier itself ('partial update' on 'ebios rm feared events') conveys any sense of verb and resource; the description text adds nothing an agent could not already read in the tool name.

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 versus ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_feared_events_update (full update), _create, _destroy, or _retrieve, all of which sit in the same sibling namespace. The word 'partial' in the identifier hints at PATCH semantics, but that comes from the name, not from any described usage condition.

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