Api ebios rm studies 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. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond boilerplate, and its 'viewed' wording rubs against the non-read-only annotation. It does not say whether the body replaces the resource, what fields are writable, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 a single short sentence with no bloat, so length is not the problem. However, the one sentence is generic boilerplate rather than a front-loaded statement of what the update operation does.

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 an update mutation with a free-form body and no output schema, the definition leaves out the information an agent actually needs: what the body should contain, whether it is a full or partial replacement, and the required 'id' semantics. Annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, but the description does not compensate for the 0% parameter coverage.

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 the description says nothing about the required 'id' or the opaque 'body' object. With two undocumented parameters and a free-form body (additionalProperties: true), the description must compensate and gives the agent zero semantic information.

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 generic DRF viewset boilerplate: 'allows ebios rm studies to be viewed or edited.' It names the resource but uses vague, dual-purpose verbs and does not distinguish this update operation from the many sibling tools such as partial_update, retrieve, list, or object_retrieve. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether the tool reads or writes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_partial_update or the retrieve/list siblings. The phrase 'viewed or edited' suggests it could be used for reading, which is especially unhelpful for routing an agent to the correct tool.

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