wafeq_purchase_orders_update

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

The description adds the HTTP method 'PUT /purchase-orders/{id}/' and the 'WRITE' signal, which is mildly informative beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not disclose PUT replacement semantics, whether omitted fields are reset, or the consequences of updating an existing purchase order. It mostly restates what annotations already convey.

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 with the endpoint and method, but it repeats itself: 'updates data', 'Update purchase order', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing purchase order' all convey the same information. The redundancy reduces conciseness without adding value.

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 complex update tool with nested line_items, required currency and body fields, an idempotency key, and a sibling partial_update endpoint. The description provides no context about full-update behavior, differences from partial updates, how line_items are replaced, or what the response looks like. The lack of an output schema makes the missing contextual guidance more impactful.

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 no parameter-level explanation. The schema itself provides descriptions for most body fields, but the body's own description 'Adds nested create feature' is confusing and irrelevant for an update operation. With 67% schema description coverage, the description still fails to clarify the required top-level body structure or the meaning of the idempotency key beyond what the schema already says.

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 operation: 'Update purchase order' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing purchase order.' The verb and resource are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling wafeq_purchase_orders_partial_update, which also updates purchase orders, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus wafeq_purchase_orders_partial_update, wafeq_purchase_orders_create, or other purchase order endpoints. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer its usage solely from the name and endpoint.

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