Api ebios rm operating modes 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 covered structurally. The description contributes nothing on top of that: no mention of what fields are overwritten, whether a full or partial replacement occurs, or what permissions/validation apply.

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 no padding, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, effect, or scope.

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?

A mutation endpoint with a free-form body, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and dozens of similarly named siblings demands far more descriptive content than an operation ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 description provides no parameter information. The `body` parameter is an unconstrained free-form object (additionalProperties: true) whose expected shape is completely undocumented anywhere, and the required `id` string is equally unexplained.

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 restated in snake_case ("api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_update") and adds nothing beyond the name/title. An agent can infer it mutates an EBIOS RM operating mode, but only by parsing the identifier itself, and it is indistinguishable from sibling endpoints like operating_modes_partial_update or operating_modes_save_graph.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping EBIOS RM operating-mode siblings (partial_update, create, destroy, save_graph, build_graph). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context signals a full update versus a patch.

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