Api ebios rm operating modes partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of permission requirements, which fields are mutable, or what a partial update returns. It contributes zero behavioral context.

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 that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication; the single identifier is not front-loaded with any actionable information.

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 a completely undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description should carry substantial weight but instead says nothing. It is wholly inadequate for calling the tool correctly.

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%: the required 'id' is an undescribed string and 'body' is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no documented fields. The description supplies no clarification of either parameter, so an agent has no idea what to put in the request body.

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 operation ID repeated verbatim, which restates the name and title rather than describing the action. An agent can infer a partial update of EBIOS RM operating modes only by parsing the identifier, not from any prose about what is updated.

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 statement of when to use this versus the sibling full-update (operating_modes_update) or create variants, and no prerequisites or context given. The agent is left to infer routing entirely from the tool name.

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