Api vulnerabilities partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It never explains that only the fields supplied in the body are changed, that unspecified fields are preserved, or what happens on an unknown id.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — it spends its one sentence on a tautology instead of the partial-update semantics.

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 a free-form body, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves critical information missing: which fields are patchable, whether the response returns the updated object, and how it differs from its many sibling endpoints.

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 documents neither parameter. The 'body' parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent has no idea which vulnerability fields can be patched; 'edited' is the only faint hint and it is not sufficient.

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 generic boilerplate that restates the resource name ('vulnerabilities') with a vague verb pair ('viewed or edited'). It never says this is a PATCH-style partial update, so an agent cannot distinguish it from ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_update, _retrieve, or _create from the description alone.

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 guidance on when to use partial update versus the full update sibling, nor on prerequisites such as required permissions or the need to first fetch the object. The phrase 'viewed or edited' actively blurs the read/write distinction an agent needs to pick correctly.

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