Api ebios rm operational scenarios 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 adds nothing beyond that - no mention of replacement semantics, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted fields, which is significant given the full-update verb.

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 the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy - the single token is a machine identifier, not a front-loaded explanation of intent or effect.

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 taking an untyped body payload with no annotations explaining semantics beyond idempotency, and no output schema, the definition supplies none of the information needed to call it 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 'id' parameter and an opaque free-form 'body' object (anyOf object/null) are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate by naming any updatable fields, so the agent has no signal about what to put in 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 raw operation identifier repeated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_update'). It only implies 'update an operational scenario' through the name itself, with no independent statement of resource, scope, or effect, and no differentiation from the sibling *_partial_update or *_batch_action_create tools.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing guidance is present. An agent cannot infer from the description whether a full replacement or a merge-style update is intended, which matters because ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_partial_update exists alongside it.

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