wafeq_payments_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-idempotent behavior is covered by structured metadata. The idempotency_key parameter description adds meaningful behavioral context about automatic UUID generation and safe retries, which is a genuine disclosure beyond annotations. The description does not contradict annotations — 'updates data' is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No annotation contradiction found.

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: 'Update payment' plus a redundant top line '🟡 WRITE · updates data · Payments · PUT /payments/{id}/'. The zero-value meta line provides HTTP method and resource context, which is useful, but 'Update payment' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing payment' are nearly tautological repeats of the tool name/title. It is brief but takes three lines to say essentially the same thing twice. Some structure is present with the prefix, but the redundancy costs it a higher score.

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 is highly complex: 3 parameters, one of which is a large nested body with many conditional fields (payment_fees_account required if payment_fees is set, employee required for payslip payments, etc.). With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for explaining what the update does and what a successful call returns. The description says only 'Update payment' and provides none of that context. The heavily annotated schema compensates somewhat, but the description itself is inadequate for an operation with 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?

The schema itself is rich and covers 67% of parameters with detailed descriptions (amount reconciliation rules, exchange rate semantics, list types). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The `id` parameter (path identifier) has no description, and the body parameter's schema description is a DRF boilerplate string ('A ModelSerializer that takes additional arguments...') that adds little functional guidance. However, the nested payment lists and amount semantics are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, so the description does not need to repeat them. Baseline 3 applies given the high schema 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 tool name `wafeq_payments_update` combined with the title 'Update payment' and description 'Update payment' clearly identifies this as updating an existing payment, which is a specific verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /payments/{id}/) in the prefix line, which adds technical clarity. However, the core description is terse and does not differentiate it from siblings like `wafeq_payments_partial_update` beyond implying full update vs partial update — the distinction is left to the name.

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 states 'Endpoint for updating an existing payment' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus `wafeq_payments_partial_update` or `wafeq_payments_create`. There is no mention of the PUT vs PATCH distinction, whether the full body must be supplied, or that `wafeq_payments_partial_update` is for selective field updates. An agent cannot determine when to choose this tool over alternatives from the description alone.

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