Api settings feature flags partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say what a partial update changes, whether unspecified flags are preserved, what permissions are required for feature flags, or whether changes take effect immediately.

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 technically brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single identifier string with no front-loaded statement of action or scope.

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?

A mutation tool that accepts an opaque, undocumented free-form body with no output schema and no description of the payload or side effects leaves an agent unable to call it correctly without guessing. Nothing beyond the annotations is supplied.

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?

The single parameter is a free-form object (`additionalProperties: true`, anyOf with null) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema tells an agent almost nothing about the expected payload. The description must compensate here and instead provides zero information about which feature-flag keys or value shapes the body accepts.

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 the tool name verbatim ("api_settings_feature_flags_partial_update"), so its entire meaning derives from parsing an identifier rather than a stated purpose. It does imply partial modification of feature flags in API settings, but it adds no verb-plus-resource statement and does not distinguish this from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_settings_feature_flags_update or ciso_assistant_api_settings_feature_flags_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the retrieve variant, the full-update variant, or the generic ciso_assistant_api_request sibling. No prerequisites, no exclusions, nothing to select on.

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