Api solutions update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say that part of the record is replaced vs. merged, whether the full object is required, or anything about permissions, so it contributes zero beyond structured fields.

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 padding, so there is nothing to trim. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: the one sentence it spends is spent on an ambiguous verb.

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 no annotations beyond the standard hints, no output schema, and a free-form body parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies none of the information needed to call it correctly, such as what the body may contain or what happens on success.

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 critical gap is "body": an opaque anyOf object with no defined properties, so an agent has no idea what fields can be updated or in what shape. This is exactly the case where the description must compensate and it does not.

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 names the resource (solutions) but the verb is muddled: "viewed or edited" describes a viewset, while this specific tool is an update operation. It gives no way to distinguish it from siblings ciso_assistant_api_solutions_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_solutions_partial_update, so it reads as a restatement of the title rather than a statement of what this endpoint does.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the retrieve, partial_update, or create siblings. The phrase "viewed or edited" actively blurs the choice between reading and writing, so an agent gets no routing signal at all.

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