wafeq_beneficiaries_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that the beneficiary must already exist and exposes the PUT method, which hints at full-replacement semantics, but it does not explain side effects, required-field reset behavior, or response details.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, but it is repetitive: 'Update beneficiary' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing beneficiary' restate the same idea. It is not bloated, but it does waste some words.

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 write endpoint with a nested body and a close sibling partial_update tool, the description leaves important behavior implicit, particularly full-update semantics and when to choose this over partial_update. There is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the caller should expect in return.

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 itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema provides solid documentation for most fields, including enums, formats, and required nested properties. With 67% top-level schema coverage and detailed nested field descriptions, the schema carries most of the burden, so the description is not required to compensate heavily.

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 ('updating') and the resource ('an existing beneficiary'), and the HTTP method/path (PUT /beneficiaries/{id}/) is explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling partial_update tool, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wafeq_beneficiaries_partial_update or wafeq_beneficiaries_create. The description implies an existing beneficiary but does not explain the difference between full PUT updates and partial updates.

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