Api ebios rm feared events 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, and the description adds nothing on top of that — no indication of what the body replaces, whether omitted fields are cleared, what permissions are required, or what a successful response contains. For a mutation endpoint the description carries zero behavioral disclosure.

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 identifier token rather than a sentence, so it is technically short but is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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 write operation with an untyped body parameter, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at minimum describe the payload and the effect of the update. It supplies nothing, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly beyond 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the 'body' parameter is an unconstrained free-form object (anyOf object/null), so the description must explain what payload fields exist; it explains none. The description also fails to clarify that 'id' is the required identifier of the feared event being modified.

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 identifier string "api_ebios_rm_feared_events_update" repeated verbatim, which is a tautology that restates the tool name and title. An agent can infer a mutation of 'feared events' from the name alone, but the description itself contributes nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_feared_events_partial_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings (_partial_update, _update, _create, _destroy, _cascade_info_retrieve). The description provides no triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions whatsoever.

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