Api risk scenarios update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what part of the scenario is replaced, permission requirements, or side effects on related risk assessments. Worse, 'viewed or edited' implies a read capability while readOnlyHint=false marks this as a write operation, which is misleading rather than clarifying.

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 efficient. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — the one sentence conveys almost no actionable 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 accepting an arbitrary untyped body with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain the expected payload and update semantics. It leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly without external knowledge of the CISO Assistant API.

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 untyped anyOf object with no field list. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the identifier or what the body should contain, leaving the agent to guess the risk scenario payload shape.

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 generic DRF boilerplate: 'allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited.' It names the resource but pairs it with an ambiguous dual verb, so it never says this tool updates an existing risk scenario identified by id. It gives no basis for distinguishing it from the many siblings such as risk_scenarios_update, risk_scenarios_partial_update, or risk_scenarios_retrieve.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (does it replace or merge fields?), and no mention of alternatives like the partial_update or retrieve endpoints. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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