wafeq_manual_journals_update

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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description's 'WRITE · updates data' is consistent with those annotations and adds the PUT endpoint, but it does not disclose extra behavioral details such as full-replacement semantics or side effects on nested line items.

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 usefully packs the write category, resource, and HTTP endpoint, but 'Update manual journal' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing manual journal' are redundant restatements of the same idea. The description is short but repetitive, so not every sentence earns 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 large nested body and no output schema, the description only says it updates a manual journal. It does not explain whether unspecified fields are reset, how line_items should be provided, or what a successful update returns. The schema provides field-level detail, but the description leaves important invocation context 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?

The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema documents the nested body fields, required date, line_items structure, and idempotency_key in good detail. With moderate schema coverage, the schema carries most of the burden, though the description does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 identifies the operation as updating an existing manual journal and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, so an agent can tell this is the update tool for that resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with wafeq_manual_journals_partial_update, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus wafeq_manual_journals_partial_update, create, retrieve, or destroy. The phrase 'updating an existing manual journal' implies a general use case, but it does not explain when a full PUT update is appropriate or when partial_update should be chosen instead.

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