Api terminologies 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 known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what is replaced, whether unspecified fields are cleared (PUT semantics), or what permissions are required.

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?

This is not conciseness but under-specification: a single fragment restating the tool name. There is no front-loaded purpose sentence and nothing an agent can act on.

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 with a wide-open object body, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema needs the description to explain the payload; it explains nothing. The definition is 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%, and the description says nothing about the two parameters. The 'body' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the description had the full burden of explaining its expected shape and failed to do so.

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 'api_terminologies_update' only echoes the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an explanation. It never states what a terminology is or what the update changes, and it gives no signal distinguishing it from ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_partial_update or _update.

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?

The word 'update' weakly implies modifying an existing record, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer partial_update versus update, and no prerequisites. An agent browsing the many terminologies_* siblings gets no routing help.

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