wafeq_invoices_line_items_update

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description's '🟡 WRITE · updates data' marker is consistent with these annotations, and the PUT method implies idempotent full-update semantics. However, the description does not explicitly disclose that a PUT replaces the line item and that omitted fields may be reset, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotations state.

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 first line is an effective front-loaded summary, but the remaining two lines are redundant: 'Update invoice line item' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing invoice line item' say nearly the same thing. Compact overall, but every sentence does not earn its place.

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 (including revenue_recognition sub-object, write-only fields, and 11 body properties) and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the critical PUT-vs-PATCH behavioral difference, the fact that this is a full replacement update, and any indication of which body fields are required. The schema and annotations partially compensate, but significant agent-facing context is missing.

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 50%, and the tool description adds zero parameter-level guidance. The top-level params invoice_id and id have no schema descriptions, and the 'body' property's schema description is a confusing internal serializer note ('Augment custom_fields in the output with computed CALCULATED field values...') that reads like output documentation, not request-body semantics. The description does nothing to compensate for these 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 clearly states the action ('Update invoice line item') and the exact resource (invoice line items) with the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /invoices/{invoice_id}/line-items/{id}/). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling wafeq_invoices_line_items_partial_update, which has nearly identical purpose.

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 for when to use this full PUT update versus the nearly identical sibling wafeq_invoices_line_items_partial_update. The tool description never mentions alternatives, exclusions, or the PUT-vs-PATCH selection criterion. An agent must infer the difference solely from the HTTP method embedded in the endpoint string.

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