wafeq_payment_requests_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the 'WRITE' marker adds little novel information. The description does add the PUT method and endpoint path as genuine behavioral context, and the schema's idempotency_key description reinforces idempotentHint=true. No contradiction with 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?

Short and front-loaded with the WRITE marker and endpoint, which is good. But the content is redundant: 'Update payment request' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing payment request' restate the same point and duplicate the title.

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 body object with 9 required fields and a sibling partial-update variant, yet the description is only a title-length clause. It does not explain full-update semantics, the id+body requirement, or why an agent would choose this over wafeq_payment_requests_partial_update, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 adds nothing about parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most fields, but the id parameter has no schema description and the description does not clarify it. The body description ('An entity that can have attachments') is weak, and the tool description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update payment request') and identifies the HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint path. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from the sibling wafeq_payment_requests_partial_update, whose reason for existing is the full-vs-partial update distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critically, it never explains that PUT implies full replacement semantics versus wafeq_payment_requests_partial_update, or when an agent should prefer one over the other. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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