Api ebios rm ro to create

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

Annotations already declare write semantics (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, and the description neither contradicts them nor adds anything beyond them. Nothing is said about what the body must contain, what gets created, permission requirements, or what the response looks like.

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?

Technically one line, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no content to front-load, and the single token is a machine-generated identifier rather than an explanation.

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 zero readable parameter documentation, no output schema, and a schema that accepts arbitrary objects, the definition leaves an agent unable to call it correctly at all.

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?

One optional 'body' parameter with 0% schema description coverage and a bare anyOf object/null type; the description provides no compensating detail about the body's expected fields. The agent has literally no information about what to send.

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 tool name repeated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_ro_to_create'), a tautology that gives no verb+resource phrasing an agent could act on. It does not decode the 'ro_to' abbreviation (presumably risk origin / target objective in EBIOS RM) nor distinguish it from the many sibling ebios_rm create/list/destroy 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?

There is no guidance whatsoever: no when-to-use, no prerequisites, no mention of the sibling alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_ro_to_list, _update, or _destroy. With hundreds of near-identical sibling endpoints, this leaves selection entirely to name guessing.

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