wafeq_payment_requests_partial_update

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

Annotations already convey write behavior, non-destructiveness, and idempotency. The description adds the PATCH method and the 'existing' qualifier, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, authentication requirements, or side effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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-loads the HTTP method and resource path. However, 'Partial update payment request' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing payment request' are redundant, and the opening metadata line partly repeats the annotations.

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?

The tool has a nested request body and no output schema, but the input schema and annotations are rich enough to support basic invocation. The description omits explicit guidance on PATCH semantics like 'only supplied fields are updated' and does not reference the full-update alternative, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description itself provides no parameter-level guidance, but the input schema covers most parameters: body fields have rich descriptions and idempotency_key has a detailed explanation. The undocumented 'id' is obvious from the path. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description does not need to carry the full burden.

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 ('partially updating'), the resource ('payment request'), and the target state ('existing payment request'). It also includes the HTTP verb and path (PATCH /payment_requests/{id}/), which distinguishes it from create, retrieve, full update, and delete siblings.

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 clear context: use this endpoint when you need to partially update an existing payment request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'partial update' language naturally separates it from the full-update sibling.

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