Api incidents partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, i.e. a mutating call, while the description frames the endpoint as a CSV/XLSX export mixin, which is a read-style concern. Beyond that mismatch, nothing is said about what fields get modified, whether omitted fields are preserved, 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 there is no bloat, but under-specification is not conciseness. The one line present is irrelevant to the tool's function and occupies the only opportunity to explain it.

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` object, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description supplies nothing an agent needs. There is no way to infer the payload shape, the target resource, or the effect of the call from this text.

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 for the two parameters. It says nothing about `id` (the incident identifier) or `body` (a free-form object holding the patch payload), leaving the agent with no idea what to send.

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 says "Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports," which describes an export/read concern rather than a partial update of an incident. It never mentions incidents, partial update, or PATCH semantics, so an agent reading it would have no idea what the tool actually does.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_incidents_update or ciso_assistant_api_incidents_export_csv_retrieve, and no prerequisites. The single sentence points at export behavior, which would actively steer an agent away from the correct use.

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