Api findings partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context at all: no permission requirements, no statement of which fields can be patched, no note that unspecified fields are left unchanged. Nothing contradicts the annotations, but the description carries zero added value.

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 token with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose beyond the identifier itself.

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 parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate; an agent cannot tell what a patch to a finding looks like or what it returns.

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 two parameters are 'id' (untyped string) and 'body' (an unconstrained object with additionalProperties: true). The description provides no field names, formats, or examples, so the agent has no way to construct a valid patch body from either the description or the schema.

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 only the operation identifier 'api_findings_partial_update', restating the tool name rather than describing the action in prose. The name does encode a verb+resource (partial update on findings), so it is slightly more informative than a pure tautology, but it gives no scope, no fields, and no differentiation from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_findings_update or ciso_assistant_api_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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the full-update sibling or the many other findings endpoints. An agent must infer everything from the identifier alone.

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