wafeq_accounts_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description's '🟡 WRITE' plus PUT method are consistent with those. The only added context is the HTTP method and path, which imply full-replace semantics, but the description never discloses that omitted fields may be reset to defaults or that all required fields must be present — significant for a PUT operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The first line is dense and front-loaded, conveying method, resource, and path in one glance. However, 'Update account' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing account' are largely redundant with the tool name and title, meaning two of the three lines add little new information.

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 full PUT operating on a complex nested body with a partial_update sibling, the description leaves critical context out: full-update semantics, behavior of omitted body fields, and how this differs from wafeq_accounts_partial_update. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on what the endpoint returns would also have been valuable, but nothing is provided.

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 description contributes zero parameter information; the schema does the heavy lifting, covering roughly 67% of parameters. Body fields like parent, name_en, account_code, and classification carry their own descriptions, and idempotency_key is well documented, while the self-evident id parameter has none. Since coverage is moderate rather than high, the description's silence is acceptable but not ideal.

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 clearly states the operation ('updates data'), the resource ('Accounts'), and the endpoint (PUT /accounts/{id}/), and confirms it is for 'updating an existing account.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wafeq_accounts_partial_update — the PUT-versus-PATCH distinction is only implicit and never stated.

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 is given on when to use this full PUT update instead of wafeq_accounts_partial_update, wafeq_accounts_create, or other account tools. The phrase 'existing account' implies a prerequisite, but the description never mentions that all required body fields (account_code, classification, is_payment_enabled, name_en, sub_classification) must be supplied, which is the key behavioral difference from a partial update.

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