wafeq_custom_fields_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, and the description's '🟡 WRITE · updates data' is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds modest context beyond annotations: the PATCH method and endpoint path. It does not discuss partial-update semantics (omitted fields remain unchanged) or side effects, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 most useful line ('🟡 WRITE · updates data · Custom Fields · PATCH /custom-fields/{id}/') is front-loaded with method and path, but the next two lines — 'Partial update custom field' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing custom field' — are near-duplicates of each other and essentially restate the first line. The redundancy wastes space that could hold behavioral guidance.

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 discriminated-union schema, the definition is passable: annotations establish safety and idempotency, the schema explains every parameter (including per-field_type metadata structure), and the description gives method and endpoint. The gaps are the absence of an output schema or any description of the response, and no statement of partial-update semantics (e.g., omitted fields are left untouched). An agent could call it correctly, but not with full confidence about consequences.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema fully documents id, body, and idempotency_key, including a detailed explanation of the X-Wafeq-Idempotency-Key header, auto-generated UUID v4, and retry-safety behavior. The description itself contributes nothing about parameters, which is fine because the schema carries the 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 names a specific verb ('partially updating') and resource ('an existing custom field'), and adds the HTTP method and endpoint path (PATCH /custom-fields/{id}/) which anchors the operation precisely. It is clear what the tool does, and the word 'partial' implicitly separates it from the full-update sibling wafeq_custom_fields_update, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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?

The 'partial update' framing implies the use case — modify a subset of fields on an existing custom field rather than create, retrieve, or fully replace it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like wafeq_custom_fields_update, and no exclusions (e.g., whether field_type can be changed after creation).

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