wafeq_debit_notes_line_items_partial_update

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the PATCH method and 'partial update' semantics, which provide some behavior context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior.

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 short but redundant, repeating 'partial update debit note line item' in both the second and third lines. The first line provides useful endpoint metadata, but the repeated statements could be collapsed into one sentence.

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 nested, partially updatable resource with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain that body fields are optional, what a typical partial update body looks like, or what the response contains. An agent would need to infer most operational details from the schema and siblings.

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 no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is only 50%: id and debit_note_id lack descriptions, the body property's description appears irrelevant (referring to custom_fields computed values), and the description text does not explain how to structure the body or which fields are commonly updated. The idempotency_key is well-described in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the gaps.

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: partially updating an existing debit note line item, and includes the HTTP method and path. It is clear about the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like the full update variant.

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 word 'partial' implies use when only a subset of fields needs updating, as opposed to a full update. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over wafeq_debit_notes_line_items_update or other alternatives, leaving the guidance mostly implied.

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