wafeq_payslips_update

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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description's 'WRITE · updates data' adds nothing beyond those annotations. It does not disclose whether the update performs full replacement of payslip fields (as the required body fields suggest) or a merge, and does not discuss side effects such as status transitions or versioning.

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-loaded, but it redundantly restates the same idea four times: 'WRITE', 'updates data', 'Update payslip', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing payslip'. A single concise sentence would convey the same meaning with less noise.

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 mutation tool with a nested body, three top-level parameters, no output schema, and a close sibling (wafeq_payslips_partial_update), the description is too thin. It leaves the agent to guess full-replacement semantics, the difference from partial update, and any constraints on updating posted payslips. The schema and annotations are rich, but the description fails to tie them together with operational context.

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 nested body object is richly documented with per-field descriptions for currency, employee, pay_items, status, and others — so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description itself contributes zero parameter-level information. The body property's schema description ('Adds nested create feature') is a confusing template artifact that mentions 'create' for an update tool, slightly undermining clarity.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Endpoint for updating an existing payslip' and 'PUT /payslips/{id}/'. This unambiguously identifies the operation as a full update to a payslip resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wafeq_payslips_partial_update, relying on the name and HTTP method to imply the 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 usage guidance is given. The description does not say when to prefer this full update over wafeq_payslips_partial_update, nor does it mention the relationship to wafeq_payslips_create or when an update is appropriate (e.g., only on DRAFT vs POSTED status). An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from tool names.

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