Api risk acceptances update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about what an update does to an existing risk acceptance record, what fields are mutable, or what happens on conflict; worse, the phrase "viewed or edited" implies a read capability this non-read-only tool does not primarily offer.

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 that brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the one clause present is generic boilerplate that conveys no actionable detail.

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 0% parameter coverage, an opaque free-form body, and no output schema, the description provides none of the information an agent needs: no payload contract, no side-effect disclosure, no return semantics, and no routing against the many sibling risk-acceptance endpoints.

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%: `id` is an undescribed string and `body` is an unconstrained anyOf object with no property definitions or description. The description supplies no compensating information about what the body must contain, which payload shape to send, or whether it is a full replace versus a merge.

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 in prose ("risk acceptance ... viewed or edited") without committing to a verb. It never says this is an update operation, and "viewed or edited" conflates it with the sibling retrieve/partial_update tools, so an agent cannot distinguish the operation from its siblings without opening the schema.

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 rather than ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_partial_update, _retrieve, or _update, nor any mention of prerequisites, required identifiers, or the state machine actions (accept/reject/submit) that also exist for this resource.

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