wafeq_bank_accounts_partial_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only the PATCH endpoint and 'updates data', which largely restates the annotations and title. It does not add context such as whether omitted fields are preserved, what happens on invalid input, or what the response contains.

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 endpoint and WRITE label are front-loaded and informative. However, the two following sentences, 'Partial update bank account' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing bank account.', are redundant and could be condensed into one sentence.

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?

The schema and annotations cover idempotency, non-destructive behavior, and the updatable fields, so the definition is minimally adequate. Still, there is no explanation of partial-update semantics (e.g., only provided fields are changed) and no output schema to clarify the return value.

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 schema already documents the body subfields and idempotency_key with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the required id parameter has no explicit description, but its meaning is clear from the endpoint and context.

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 identifies a write/PATCH operation on a bank account and includes the endpoint path. It distinguishes this from list/retrieve/destroy siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the full-update sibling wafeq_bank_accounts_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 description implies the tool is for partially updating an existing bank account, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It relies on the standard PATCH semantics and the 'partial' name rather than spelling out that this is the right choice when only a subset of fields needs changing.

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