wafeq_purchase_orders_line_items_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's WRITE label is consistent with them. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, but adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations — no mention of the response, effect on purchase order totals, or overwrite semantics. No contradiction.

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 states the same fact three times: the 'WRITE · updates data' label, 'Update purchase order line item', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing purchase order line item' are all redundant. Only the PUT path carries new information; the sentences do not each earn their 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?

This is a write operation with a nested 10-property body and 3 required params, and no output schema. The three-line description explains none of the required body fields, the PUT-versus-PATCH choice against partial_update, or what the response contains, leaving an agent to fully parse the schema and infer behavior.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the path params purchase_order_id and id have no schema descriptions, but the URL template in the description partially reveals their role. However, the tool description does not clarify the required body fields (description, quantity, unit_amount) or their semantics, and the body's schema description is confusingly framed around serializer internals like 'get_resolved_custom_fields'.

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 twice: 'Update purchase order line item' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing purchase order line item', and includes the exact PUT path /purchase-orders/{purchase_order_id}/line-items/{id}/. This differentiates it from create/destroy/list siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the partial_update sibling.

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 full PUT update versus the sibling wafeq_purchase_orders_line_items_partial_update, no prerequisites (e.g., the line item must exist, purchase order state), and no exclusions or alternatives. The description only restates the operation without any usage context.

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