Api frameworks update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether this replaces the whole framework object, whether it requires draft mode or edit permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The phrase "viewed or edited" is also inconsistent with the write nature of the endpoint, though 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?

A single short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it spends its only clause on generic DRF boilerplate and front-loads no actionable information.

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 an idempotent write tool with 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, a free-form body, and dozens of closely-related framework siblings, the description provides none of the information an agent needs to call it correctly or safely.

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 neither schema nor description explains what fields belong in the body. The description never mentions the required `id` path parameter or the shape/contents of `body`, leaving the most important call-construction detail entirely undocumented.

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 boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows frameworks to be viewed or edited") rather than stating the specific operation. The tool is an update, yet the text conflates viewing and editing, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_partial_update, or ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling framework tools, in particular partial_update (PATCH) vs this update (PUT). No prerequisites, no mention of the draft/edit workflow tools (start_editing, save_draft, publish_draft) that gate framework mutation in this API.

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