wafeq_bills_line_items_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description only restates the write nature ('🟡 WRITE · updates data') and the endpoint, adding no behavioral context such as whether omitted fields are reset, how totals are recalculated, or how amortization is affected. 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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the operation type, resource, and endpoint in a compact structured prefix. However, 'Update bill line item' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing bill line item' are redundant restatements of the same idea, so not every line fully earns its place.

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 tool with a complex nested body (amortization configuration, discount constraints, custom_fields) and no output schema, the description provides no usage context, no note on full vs. partial update behavior, and no pointer to related retrieval tools. The schema and annotations carry nearly the entire burden.

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 only 50%, and the two path parameters (bill_id and id) are undocumented in the schema; the description's URL template only implicitly clarifies their roles. The description names no body fields and adds nothing beyond the schema about required fields like account, description, quantity, and unit_amount.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('bill line item'), reinforced by the endpoint template 'PUT /bills/{bill_id}/line-items/{id}/'. This clearly distinguishes the operation from create, retrieve, and destroy siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related wafeq_bills_line_items_partial_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this full update vs. the sibling wafeq_bills_line_items_partial_update, no mention that PUT implies full replacement semantics, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The closest alternative tool is never referenced.

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