Api security advisories partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a mutation, so no contradiction. But it adds nothing beyond the annotations: no statement that only supplied fields are patched, no permission or side-effect notes, and no indication of what happens to unspecified fields on the advisory.

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, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity comes from generic boilerplate rather than prioritization of useful information, so it is under-specified rather than tight.

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 a free-form object body, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should say what fields can be patched and what the response contains. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions the required `id` or the `body` parameter, which is an untyped object blob with no example payload — the agent has no way to know what shape of advisory data to send. Complete description burden, entirely unmet.

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 a generic DRF docstring: "allows security advisories to be viewed or edited." It names the resource but conflates read and write, and does not distinguish this PATCH operation from the many sibling tools (security_advisories_update, _retrieve, _list, _create). An agent cannot tell from this text that it is the partial-update endpoint.

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 instead of ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_update or _retrieve. The phrase "viewed or edited" actually blurs the choice rather than resolving it, leaving the agent to infer 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.