Api resilience asset assessments partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state non-idempotently — but the description adds nothing: no mention of what fields are patchable, permission requirements, or how partial semantics treat omitted fields.

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 only because it contains zero information — this is under-specification, not conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a name copy.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with an untyped free-form body, no output schema, no annotations covering payload semantics, and no description of what may be changed makes correct invocation essentially guesswork.

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%: the required `id` is an unexplained string and `body` is an open anyOf object with no documented fields. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent with no idea what keys the PATCH body accepts.

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 just the snake_case tool name repeated verbatim, a tautology that restates the title rather than describing the action. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a PATCH-style partial update of a resilience asset assessment record identified by id.

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 instead of the sibling update, create, retrieve, or object_retrieve endpoints. The only signal is the word 'partial' in the name, which the reader must decode themselves.

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