wafeq_cost_centers_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 captured by structured data. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint path but provides no detail about full-overwrite semantics or response behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, which is consistent with the write and idempotency hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line packs in the write indicator, resource, and HTTP method. It loses a point because 'Update cost center' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing cost center' 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 write operation with a required nested body and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the full-update semantics implied by PUT, offers no guidance on choosing between this and partial_update, and gives no response context — leaving the agent to infer critical behavior solely from the schema.

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 coverage is 67% and the body fields plus idempotency_key are documented within the schema itself. However, the required id parameter has no schema description and the tool description adds nothing to clarify it, contributing no parameter meaning beyond the bare path template '/cost-centers/{id}/'.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') with a clear resource ('cost center') and identifies the operation as a PUT endpoint for an existing cost center. It is unambiguous about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wafeq_cost_centers_partial_update, which performs a closely related operation.

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 tool versus wafeq_cost_centers_partial_update or wafeq_cost_centers_create. The critical distinction — that PUT requires the full body (is_active, name_ar, name_en all required) while PATCH allows partial changes — is never stated, leaving an agent likely to pick the wrong update variant.

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