Api ebios rm stakeholders partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context at all – not what a partial update preserves, not which fields are mutable, not auth or side effects. For a mutation tool the description carries the full remaining burden and delivers nothing.

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 and wastes no words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness – a single opaque token that gives the reader nothing to act on.

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 an opaque free-form body, no output schema, no annotations explaining semantics, and 0% schema coverage needs a description to explain the payload – none is provided. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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% for two parameters: 'id' is undocumented and 'body' is an untyped free-form object with no property list. The description supplies no field names, no payload shape, and no indication of what a partial body should contain, so an agent cannot construct a valid call from it.

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 only the operation identifier repeated verbatim: 'api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_partial_update'. It restates the name/title rather than stating in prose what the tool does; an agent gains nothing beyond what it could parse from the slug itself.

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 about when to use this tool versus the siblings. With ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_update, _create, _retrieve and _list all present, the choice between full update, partial update, and create is left entirely to inference.

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