wafeq_invoices_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), and the description does not contradict them. The description adds minor context beyond annotations — the PUT method and that the target is an 'existing' invoice — but it does not disclose the key behavioral trait of a full PUT update: what happens to fields omitted from the required body, or why partial_update would be preferable.

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 a safety signal and HTTP method, which is good. However, it is redundant: 'Update invoice' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing invoice' say essentially the same thing, and '🟡 WRITE · updates data' repeats what readOnlyHint=false already conveys. Every line should earn its place, and two of the three lines are near-duplicates.

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?

This is a complex write tool — a large nested body with multiple required fields, no output schema, and a sibling partial_update tool — yet the description provides almost no orienting context. It fails to explain full-replacement semantics, the expectation that the body contain all required invoice fields, or the difference from partial update. The rich schema and annotations do heavy lifting, but the description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 67%; the nested body fields are richly documented in the schema itself, and idempotency_key has a thorough description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the poorly-covered parameters (id, body) are semantically self-evident from the endpoint and context. The body object's cryptic schema description 'Adds nested create feature' is a minor quality issue the tool description does nothing to fix.

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 · Invoices · PUT /invoices/{id}/' and 'updating an existing invoice' — so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. The HTTP method PUT signals full-update semantics and loosely separates it from create/destroy siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from wafeq_invoices_partial_update.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that wafeq_invoices_partial_update exists for partial changes, nor does it state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer use cases entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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