Api terminologies partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond them — no note on permissions, what a partial patch preserves, validation failures, or side effects. The one behavior an agent most needs (partial semantics) is never stated in prose.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single identifier-shaped string with no sentence structure and no information front-loaded beyond the name.

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 an arbitrary open object body, no output schema, and no schema documentation, the description should explain partial-update semantics, the request body, and the resource addressed. It covers none of this.

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 supplies no parameter meaning. The body is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties true, and the description never explains its shape, so an agent has no way to know which terminology fields (name, description, field path, etc.) are accepted.

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 raw operation identifier 'api_terminologies_partial_update', which merely restates the tool name and title. Any sense of verb and resource is carried entirely by the name, not by descriptive prose, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_update or ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_cascade_info_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, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent must infer from the name alone that a full PUT-style replacement exists in ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_update, and that 'partial' means omitted fields are preserved.

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