Api entities 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 description owes context about what gets replaced or requires authorization. Instead it adds only the misleading 'viewed' framing and says nothing about full-replacement semantics, required permissions, or the opaque request body.

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, but it is short through under-specification rather than efficiency. The one claim it does make ('viewed') is not useful for an update endpoint.

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 an untyped body schema, no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description should explain payload expectations and effects. As written, an agent has nothing to rely on except the tool name.

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 names no parameters at all. The 'body' parameter is a free-form object of additionalProperties:true with no documented fields, so the description leaves the caller with no idea what payload to send beyond an 'id'.

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 name/title: 'API endpoint that allows entities to be viewed or edited' names no specific verb beyond a generic 'viewed or edited' and no scope. It cannot be distinguished from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_entities_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_entities_list, ciso_assistant_api_entities_partial_update or ciso_assistant_api_entities_destroy.

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 distinction from partial_update (PATCH) vs update (PUT) vs destroy, and no prerequisite or permission information. Worse, it suggests the tool can be used to 'view' entities, which is what the retrieve/list siblings already do.

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