wafeq_branches_update

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

The annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description only restates the write nature with 'WRITE' and 'updates data' and adds the endpoint, without disclosing behavioral context such as whether omitted fields are reset, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements. No contradiction exists, but no meaningful behavioral detail is added.

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 but highly repetitive: 'WRITE · updates data · Branches · PUT /branches/{id}/', 'Update branch', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing branch' all say essentially the same thing. The redundancy wastes space and adds no new information beyond the first line.

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?

With nested required body fields, no output schema, and a sibling partial_update tool, the description should clarify full-replacement behavior and distinguish this from partial updates. It does neither. The annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description leaves important operational context missing.

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 does not explain any parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, but the body parameter's description is generic serializer boilerplate, and the top-level 'id' has no description. The nested field descriptions in the schema carry most of the meaning, so the description provides no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 a specific action ('updating') and resource ('branch'), and the explicit PUT endpoint identifies this as the full-update operation rather than a create or partial update. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like wafeq_branches_partial_update or wafeq_branches_create, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as wafeq_branches_create, wafeq_branches_partial_update, or wafeq_branches_destroy. It does not mention prerequisites, full-vs-partial replacement semantics, or any condition that should trigger its use.

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