Api risk acceptances partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing about what fields are modifiable via PATCH, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what the response looks like; 'viewed or edited' is weak and slightly at odds with a pure partial-update mutation.

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 structurally tight. The brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than density of useful information.

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 whose body is an untyped object with no schema docs and no output schema, the description should explain editable fields and PATCH semantics. It does none of this, leaving the agent without enough 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and an opaque 'body' object of arbitrary properties, the description carries the full burden but says nothing about what 'id' identifies or which fields the body accepts. No tag, format, or field-level guidance is provided to compensate.

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 restates the title generically ('API endpoint that allows risk acceptance to be viewed or edited') without naming the specific action or resource scope a partial_update performs. 'Viewed or edited' blurs the operation and does not distinguish this tool from risk_acceptances_update, create, or destroy.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist and be in an editable state), and no reference to the many sibling tools like risk_acceptances_update (full update) or risk_acceptances_accept. The agent is left to infer the choice entirely.

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