wafeq_credit_notes_partial_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and confirms write semantics ('WRITE · updates data') without contradicting the annotations. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as what 'partial' preserves (omitted fields retain values) or any status-based constraints on what may be updated.

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 prefix line ('🟡 WRITE · updates data · Credit Notes · PATCH /credit-notes/{id}/') is compact and front-loaded, but the two sentences that follow are redundant: 'Partial update credit note' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing credit note' convey the same information twice, and both echo the title annotation.

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 complex endpoint with a large nested line_items schema, no output schema, and a partial-update semantic, the description is too thin. It does not clarify that body is optional and only supplied fields are changed, nor does it mention any constraints around updating finalized/sent credit notes, required line-item subfields, or the relationship to wafeq_credit_notes_update. The idempotency_key description is a strong asset but lives in the schema, not the tool description.

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%; the schema's own descriptions for the nested body fields (notes, branch, status, line_items, etc.) and especially the idempotency_key are informative. The tool-level description adds no parameter semantics of its own, and the body's schema description ('Adds nested create feature') is an internal developer note rather than useful guidance. The id parameter has no description, though its purpose is self-evident from the name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Partial update credit note' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing credit note.' The HTTP method (PATCH) and path are provided. It is clear what the tool does, though it relies on conventional PATCH-vs-PUT semantics rather than explicitly naming the sibling wafeq_credit_notes_update to differentiate.

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 on when to use this partial update versus the full update sibling (wafeq_credit_notes_update), the retrieve sibling, or line-items-specific endpoints. The distinction between PATCH and PUT is implied by the HTTP method and the word 'partial,' but nothing states the selection criteria (e.g., use this to update only specific fields while leaving others untouched).

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