Api evidence revisions update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds essentially nothing about mutation behaviour, permissions, or what happens to the opaque body payload. "Viewed or edited" sits at odds with a write-only endpoint, though it stops short of a hard contradiction given the word "edited" is also present.

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, front-loaded, with no padding — but that brevity comes from being generic boilerplate rather than from being information-dense.

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 entirely opaque request body, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call. It supplies none of the context the structured fields lack.

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 `body` parameter is an untyped free-form object with `additionalProperties: true`, so the description needed to explain what fields it accepts and accepts nothing. Only the resource name implicitly hints that `id` is an evidence-revision identifier.

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 endpoint name almost verbatim: "allows evidence revisions to be viewed or edited" is boilerplate for the `evidence_revisions_update` route. It never says the tool updates (PATCH/PUT-style) a single evidence revision, and it is indistinguishable from the sibling `ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_partial_update` or `_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 guidance on when to choose this over `evidence_revisions_partial_update`, `_update`, or the dedicated `_upload_create` / `_attachment_retrieve` siblings. The scope note "viewed or edited" actively muddies the choice rather than clarifying it.

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