Api security exceptions 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 the description adds nothing on the mutation/idempotency/safety front. Worse, saying the endpoint allows records to be "viewed" muddies the fact that this is a write operation, without explaining what an update changes or whether unspecified fields are overwritten (full vs partial semantics).

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's a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy – the one clause it does contain ("viewed or edited") is ambiguous rather than informative.

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 tool with an undocumented free-form `body` parameter, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition provides essentially none of the information needed to call it correctly (what fields belong in body, full vs partial update semantics, error behavior).

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 says nothing about either parameter. The opaque `body` object (anyOf object/null) has no documented shape, and the required `id` is not mentioned, so the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool name ("security exceptions") and says the endpoint allows them to be "viewed or edited," which is a tautological restatement of the title rather than a specific verb+resource statement. It doesn't clarify that this is a full update requiring the whole record, nor distinguish it from the sibling partial_update or retrieve endpoints.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided at all. With siblings like security_exceptions_partial_update, security_exceptions_retrieve, and security_exceptions_update, an agent has no signal about which one to pick for which intent.

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