wafeq_bills_update

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

The 'WRITE · updates data' label and PUT path largely restate what annotations already convey through readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as full-replacement semantics, status restrictions, or side effects, and the idempotency behavior is explained only in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description.

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 a write indicator and the endpoint. It is not bloated, though 'Update bill' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing bill' redundantly restate the same idea.

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 complex update operation with a large nested body schema and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: full versus partial update behavior, required body fields, and the relationship to sibling tools like wafeq_bills_partial_update and wafeq_bills_line_items_update. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description itself is not complete.

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 no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 67%, and the top-level body parameter description ('Adds nested create feature') is unhelpful and potentially misleading for an update operation, while 'id' has no description. The tool description does nothing to compensate for these gaps.

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 the action ('updating an existing bill') and resource (Bills), and includes the HTTP method and path (PUT /bills/{id}/). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wafeq_bills_partial_update, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this full-update tool versus wafeq_bills_partial_update, wafeq_bills_create, or wafeq_bills_retrieve. It only restates the operation and gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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