Api entity assessments partial update

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing about partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, or permission requirements. Saying the assessments may be 'viewed' is boilerplate from the viewset and mildly misleads an agent toward treating this as a read endpoint, though it is not a hard contradiction of the annotations.

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, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded payload, no operation detail, nothing that earns its place. The one clause it does contain ('viewed or edited') is generic boilerplate.

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 opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no annotation detail about side effects, the description should carry the burden and does not. An agent cannot determine from this text what a partial update changes or what a valid request body looks like.

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%: 'id' is undocumented and 'body' is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no description. The description gives zero information about what fields the body accepts or how they map to the entity assessment, leaving the most important parameter completely 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 title almost verbatim ('entity assessments' + 'viewed or edited') without naming the operation. It never says this is a partial update (PATCH) that modifies only supplied fields, so the actual verb is only inferable from the tool name, and 'viewed' even suggests a read capability the endpoint does not have.

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 its obvious siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_update, _retrieve, _object_retrieve or _partial_update on other resources. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context that would let an agent choose correctly.

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