Api perimeters 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it never says the body replaces the record (vs. PATCH semantics), what happens to omitted fields, or that auth is required.

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 with no filler, so it is concise. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing, and "viewed or edited" muddies the front-loaded point.

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 no output schema, a 0%-documented free-form body, and many near-identical sibling tools, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is essentially the auto-generated DRF docstring.

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 coverage is 0% with two parameters, including a free-form `body` object with `additionalProperties: true` and no documented fields. The description gives no hints about what belongs in the body or what `id` refers to, so it fully fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"API endpoint that allows perimeters to be viewed or edited" merely restates the tool name and conflates mutation with retrieval. It does not say this is the full-update (replace) operation, so an agent cannot distinguish it from ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_partial_update or perimeters_retrieve.

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, no prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious alternatives (partial_update for partial changes, retrieve for reading). The "viewed or edited" phrasing actively invites the wrong choice.

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