Api ebios rm strategic scenarios update

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is available. The description adds nothing about whether the update replaces the full object, whether omitted fields are cleared, or permission requirements — a notable gap for a mutation with a full-body payload.

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 shortness here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose to be concise about. Nothing was trimmed because nothing was said.

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 with an untyped free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations covering payload semantics, the description should carry substantial weight and carries none. An agent has no basis for constructing a valid body.

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 the two parameters: 'id' and an opaque 'body' anyOf object with additionalProperties true. The description does not name a single updatable field or clarify the id format, leaving the entire payload shape undocumented.

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 verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_update'), a pure restatement with no added explanation of what a strategic scenario is or what updating one entails. The verb+resource can be inferred from the name alone, but the description contributes nothing beyond it.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling partial_update, create, destroy, or batch_action variants, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer the distinction purely from the tool name suffix.

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