Api risk scenarios partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not explain that this is a merge-style partial update (unspecified fields left untouched), whether referenced related objects are overwritten, or what permissions are required — context that matters for a PATCH tool with idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but it is boilerplate filler rather than front-loaded, useful information; brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from efficient communication.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a free-form body parameter, yet the description says nothing about partial-update semantics, the payload, or the response. For a write operation on a complex risk-scenario entity, the definition is far too thin to call 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 contributes nothing: it never mentions the required 'id' path parameter nor what belongs in the opaque 'body' object (an anyOf free-form object). With no field list for the risk-scenario payload, an agent cannot construct a valid call from this definition alone.

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 a generic boilerplate line, 'API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited,' which mixes read and write verbs and never states that this tool performs a partial (PATCH-style) modification of an existing risk scenario. It names the resource but does not distinguish itself from the sibling full-update tool ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_update or from the retrieve tool.

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?

'Viewed or edited' gives no condition for choosing this tool over risk_scenarios_update, risk_scenarios_partial_update's retrieve counterparts, or the create endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing scenario id or of what happens when a field is omitted.

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