wafeq_credit_notes_update

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

The annotations already indicate a write operation (`readOnlyHint: false`) and idempotency (`idempotentHint: true`). The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating 'updates data' and showing the PUT endpoint; it does not clarify that this is a full replacement rather than a partial update, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or response behavior. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 very short, which is good, but '🟡 WRITE · updates data', 'Update credit note', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing credit note' all restate the same idea. The redundancy means not every sentence earns its place, though the overall size is appropriate.

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 and a partial-update sibling, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the PUT operation replaces the credit note, that `body` must contain all required fields, or how this differs from `wafeq_credit_notes_partial_update`. With no output schema, the description also leaves the expected response unaddressed.

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 adds essentially no parameter semantics beyond the URL placeholder for `id`. The input schema carries most of the burden with descriptions for many body fields, but the top-level `body` description ('Adds nested create feature') is generic and unhelpful, and the tool description does not compensate for the moderate 67% schema coverage or explain that the full required body must be supplied.

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 the action: 'Update credit note' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing credit note,' naming both the verb and the resource. However, it does not distinguish this full-update operation from the sibling `wafeq_credit_notes_partial_update`, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus `wafeq_credit_notes_partial_update` or other credit-note tools. The description merely states that it updates an existing credit note, leaving the agent to infer the full-update semantics from the HTTP method and schema.

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