Api ebios rm operational scenarios partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of what the partial update affects, whether omitted fields are preserved, permission requirements, or side effects. It neither confirms nor contradicts the annotations.

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 only because it is under-specified — a bare identifier fragment rather than a sentence. There is no front-loaded purpose statement or structure to guide the agent.

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 endpoint with a free-form 'body' object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, an agent needs at least the target resource, the patch semantics, and payload guidance. None of that is present, making the definition insufficient to invoke the tool safely.

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 both parameters are undocumented: the description says nothing about 'id' (identifier of the operational scenario) or 'body' (which fields are patchable, expected shape of the JSON payload). With zero-coverage params, the description must compensate and it does not at all.

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's identifier repeated ('api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_partial_update'), a tautology that restates the name and title. The name does encode a verb (partial update) and resource (EBIOS RM operational scenarios), so an agent can infer the gist, but the description itself adds no clarifying statement of purpose or differentiation from siblings like ..._update or ..._cascade_info_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?

No indication of when to use this versus the sibling tools (full update, retrieve, object_retrieve, create, destroy, batch_action). Nothing explains the partial-update semantics (PATCH-style merge vs replace) or prerequisites.

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