Api findings assessments 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 mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no permissions, no scope of overwrite, no side effects, and no word on how the open-world behavior manifests.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single identifier string with no front-loaded statement of purpose or key constraint.

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 an untyped free-form request body, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs substantial description to be callable correctly. Nothing here lets an agent know what to put in 'body' or what the update affects.

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 says nothing about either parameter. The 'body' parameter is a free-form untyped object — exactly the case where the description must enumerate expected fields — yet it gives zero information.

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 is just the tool name re-spelled ('api_findings_assessments_update'), a tautology that restates the identifier. A reader can infer it updates a findings assessment, but nothing says what is being updated or how it differs from the sibling findings_assessments_partial_update.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With sibling tools like ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_partial_update and _create present, the distinction (full replace vs partial PATCH) is entirely unstated.

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