Api journeys partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say that unspecified fields are left untouched (the defining trait of a partial update) or what happens to unknown/invalid body keys.

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 purely because it says nothing — this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of intent 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?

A mutation endpoint with an undocumented anyOf body, no output schema, and dozens of near-identical sibling tools requires far more description than a bare ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 a free-form object with no documented shape. A description pointing at what fields exist on a journey and how PATCH merge semantics apply would be the only source of that information, and it provides none.

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 the raw operation ID "api_journeys_partial_update" repeated verbatim, which merely restates the tool name and title. It conveys no additional specificity about what a 'journey' is or what fields a partial update touches. It is indistinguishable from the sibling API surface without opening the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_journeys_update (full update), _rename_create, _upgrade_create, or _batch_action_create. The agent is left to infer the difference between partial and full update entirely from naming conventions.

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