wafeq_branches_partial_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the partial-update/PATCH behavior but provides no additional context about side effects, permissions, or consequences. It does not contradict the 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 description is short and front-loaded with the write indication and endpoint, but it is redundant: 'Partial update branch' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing branch' express the same idea. The header line also repeats information available in the endpoint path.

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 partial update with rich schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states the operation, resource, and endpoint. However, it does not clarify the optionality of the body, the effect of omitting fields, or the idempotency behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 provides detailed descriptions for the nested body fields and the idempotency_key, while the id parameter is left self-evident. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the body description in the schema is boilerplate. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the remaining gap, but the key parameters are reasonably documented in structured data.

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 operation as updating a branch, specifies partial update semantics, names the resource, and gives the HTTP method and endpoint path (PATCH /branches/{id}/). This distinguishes it from full-update and destroy siblings without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'partially updating an existing branch' implies this tool should be used when only a subset of branch fields need to be changed, in contrast to a full update. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or when a different tool like wafeq_branches_update would be preferable.

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