Api policies partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's only job is to add mutation detail. Instead it ambiguously says records can be 'viewed or edited', never states this is a partial update (only listed fields change), and says nothing about permissions, validation, or open-world side effects flagged by openWorldHint=true.

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, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness — the one sentence that exists carries misinformation about the resource and the operation.

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 tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and nested/free-form body needs a description explaining payload shape and patch semantics. None of that is present, and the resource reference is wrong.

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 both parameters (id, body) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the id path identifier or the free-form body payload, leaving the agent with an opaque object it must guess at.

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 names the wrong resource: it says 'applied controls' while the tool operates on policies. It also describes viewing/editing rather than the partial (PATCH-style) update implied by the name, so an agent cannot reliably tell what the tool 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?

No indication of when to use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_policies_update, policies_create, or policies_retrieve. Neither preconditions nor exclusions are mentioned.

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