Api resilience asset assessments update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needed only to add context such as required permissions, merge semantics, or consequences for omitted fields. It adds nothing at all — the entire body is the tool name.

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 trivially short with no wasted prose, but the brevity is under-specification rather than concision — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope for the reader to anchor on.

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 an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what an assessment update accepts and its effects. Nothing beyond the name is provided, 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% and the description supplies no parameter meaning. The 'body' parameter is an unconstrained additionalProperties object with no hint about which assessment fields are updatable, and 'id' is undocumented beyond its required status.

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 only the identifier string 'api_resilience_asset_assessments_update' — a tautological restatement of the tool name and title. It conveys no verb+resource scope beyond what the snake_case name already implies, and does not distinguish it from siblings such as partial_update or create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ciso_assistant_api_resilience_asset_assessments_partial_update, _create, or _batch_action_create. The agent must infer the update-vs-partial-update distinction entirely from the name.

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