wafeq_item_units_of_measure_partial_update

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description's '🟡 WRITE · updates data' badge is consistent with them — no contradiction. The idempotency behavior is meaningfully disclosed in the schema's idempotency_key parameter description (auto-generated UUID prevents duplicate operations on retry). The description text itself adds little beyond the PATCH verb, which is already implied by 'partial update,' so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 badge line is well front-loaded with the key facts (WRITE, updates data, resource, HTTP method, path). However, the following two lines — 'Partial update item unit of measure' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing item unit of measure' — restate the same information, making roughly two-thirds of the description redundant. Short but padded.

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 3-parameter partial update with no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema cover the mutation semantics and field meanings adequately. However, it fails to explain when partial update is preferable to the full-update sibling in the same resource family, and with no output schema the response format is left unspecified. These are real but moderate gaps for agent tool selection and invocation.

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 67%, and the schema does the heavy lifting: all body sub-fields (item, is_base, conversion_factor, etc.) have meaningful descriptions, and idempotency_key is thoroughly explained. The description text adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the 'body' schema description is a generic DRF serializer note rather than practical guidance, but the description's silence is acceptable given the schema's overall coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing item unit of measure,' and reinforces it with the HTTP method and path 'PATCH /item-units-of-measure/{id}/'. The 'partial' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling full-update tool wafeq_item_units_of_measure_update. It loses a point only because the same fact is stated three times (badge line, title line, final sentence), which adds noise but not clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description never states when partial update is preferred over the full update sibling wafeq_item_units_of_measure_update, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the item unit of measure must already exist, or which fields are safe to omit). An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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