wafeq_credit_notes_line_items_update

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

The description repeats the write nature already encoded in readOnlyHint=false and adds the HTTP method, but it does not disclose full-update semantics, required authorization, or effects on omitted fields. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description contributes no behavioral context beyond them.

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 definition is short and front-loads the HTTP method and resource, but 'Update credit note line item' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing credit note line item' are redundant. The last sentence adds no information.

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?

The schema and annotations provide most of the needed detail (required body fields, idempotency, read/write profile), so the tool is callable. However, the description never explains that PUT implies a full replacement and never points to partial_update for partial edits, leaving an important selection gap.

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 endpoint path clarifies that credit_note_id is the parent credit note and id is the line item, which helps map the two undocumented string parameters. The body and idempotency_key semantics are handled by their schema descriptions, so with ~50% coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 names the exact operation ('Update credit note line item') and the resource with its endpoint path (PUT /credit-notes/{credit_note_id}/line-items/{id}/), making it distinct from sibling line-item tools for invoices, bills, quotes, and debit notes. The only weakness is it doesn't contrast with partial_update, but that is a usage-guidance concern, not purpose.

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 given about when to choose this update over wafeq_credit_notes_line_items_partial_update or the create/retrieve/destroy siblings. The 'Endpoint for updating...' sentence simply restates the action without adding selection criteria.

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