wafeq_expenses_update

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

The '🟡 WRITE · updates data' phrasing merely restates what the annotations already convey via readOnlyHint=false, and 'existing' only mildly implies the expense must already exist. The critical PUT behavior — that a full update typically replaces the record and requires all required body fields — is not disclosed, which is especially important given the partial_update sibling. The description does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint=true is consistent with PUT), but it adds little 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 description is short and front-loaded with the action marker, but it expresses the same idea three times: 'updates data', 'Update expense', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing expense'. The redundancy wastes valuable space that could have clarified update semantics. One clear statement plus the method would be tighter.

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 PUT endpoint with a nested body of 15+ properties and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to state the full-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response contains. An agent choosing between this and wafeq_expenses_partial_update cannot determine correct invocation from the description alone.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the nested body properties are individually well documented in the schema (date, amount, currency, account, paid_through_account, and others all have descriptions). The description itself adds almost no parameter meaning — it doesn't clarify that 'id' is the expense identifier beyond the URL pattern, nor that the body's six required fields must all be present. This lands at the baseline level rather than compensating for the undocumented top-level parameters.

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 — 'updates data · Expenses' and 'updating an existing expense' — and includes the HTTP method and path (PUT /expenses/{id}/). It clearly identifies this as a write operation on an existing expense, distinguishing it from creation tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling wafeq_expenses_partial_update, which also updates expenses, leaving the PUT-vs-PATCH distinction implicit.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions wafeq_expenses_partial_update for partial edits, wafeq_expenses_create for new expenses, or the trade-offs of a full PUT update. An agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name and the HTTP method.

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