Api entities partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says this is a partial (merge) mutation, that unspecified fields are left untouched, that an id must exist first, or what is returned. The word "viewed" is also loosely misleading for a write endpoint.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is concise to the point of carrying no information. Conciseness here is achieved by omission rather than by efficiency.

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 tool with no output schema, an untyped free-form body, and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to explain what can be changed and what happens on success or failure. Nothing of that is present, so the definition is inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and provides none. It does not explain that id identifies the target entity, nor that body is a free-form object of fields to merge, which leaves the key input entirely opaque.

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 restates the generated title ("entities... viewed or edited") rather than stating that this partially updates an existing entity identified by id. It is generic DRF boilerplate that an agent could not distinguish from ciso_assistant_api_entities_update, entities_create, or entities_retrieve.

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 mention of the sibling entities_update (full PUT) vs this partial PATCH, and no prerequisites. Worse, "viewed" implies the tool could be used for reads, so an agent gets no routing signal at all.

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