Api entity assessments update

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the boilerplate 'viewed or edited,' and does not explain what editing entails, whether the full body replaces existing data, or what permissions are needed.

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, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully brief. Every word is boilerplate, and no actionable detail is front-loaded.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, this extremely thin description leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly. It does not explain the required id or body structure, nor distinguish this update from partial_update.

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, yet it says nothing about the required id or the body payload. An agent cannot infer what the body should contain or whether partial updates are allowed.

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 names the resource (entity assessments) but frames the operation as 'viewed or edited,' which is vague for a tool named update and does not distinguish it from sibling retrieve or partial_update. It does not clearly state that this is a full update operation.

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 many siblings (retrieve, list, create, partial_update, batch_action, etc.). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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