wafeq_contacts_partial_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update behavior and notes that the target is an existing contact, which gives modest context beyond the structured 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 a clear WRITE/PATCH tag, but it repeats itself: 'Partial update contact' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing contact' convey the same information. It is compact but not maximally efficient.

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 tool with a complex nested body, no output schema, and several close siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response contains, how partial update behaves for omitted fields, or when to choose this over the full-update sibling.

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 67%, and the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for body fields and idempotency_key, while the endpoint path in the description explains the id parameter. The description adds no direct parameter meaning, but the schema mostly carries that burden.

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 that the tool partially updates an existing contact, with a specific verb and resource. The term 'partial update' differentiates it from the full-update sibling wafeq_contacts_update, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus wafeq_contacts_update, wafeq_contacts_destroy, or wafeq_contacts_create. The description only defines what the endpoint does and does not mention when it should be preferred or which sibling handles full replacement.

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