Api privacy right requests 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 added claim is that the resource can be "viewed," which does not match a mutation endpoint. It says nothing about what a partial update leaves untouched, permission requirements, or the fact that the `body` payload is free-form.

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?

One short sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is boilerplate that conveys no operational information. Brevity here is under-specification rather than economy.

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 taking an identifier plus an arbitrary JSON body, with no output schema and no annotations covering authorization or side effects. The description does nothing to close any of those gaps, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The `body` property is an unconstrained object with `additionalProperties: true`, and the description gives no hint of what fields belong in it — the single most important thing an agent needs here. It compensates for none of 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 right requests to be viewed or edited" restates the tool name rather than describing a specific operation. It also conflates viewing and editing, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from the sibling `_retrieve`, `_update`, or `_partial_update` tools.

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 the plain update, the retrieve, or the list endpoint. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention that this is a partial (PATCH-style) mutation as the name implies.

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