wafeq_quotes_line_items_partial_update

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description's 'WRITE · updates data' is consistent with them rather than adding much. It contributes the PATCH semantics and the idempotency behavior is covered by the idempotency_key parameter description. No contradiction with annotations, but little extra behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 but repetitive: the WRITE status line, the title, and the closing sentence all restate the same 'partially update quote line item' idea three times. It is compact, but the redundancy wastes the few sentences it uses.

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 nested-body partial update with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain that only supplied fields change, which fields are updatable, where quote_id/id come from, or what the response contains. An agent would need to open the schema and infer the rest.

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 only 50%, leaving quote_id and id entirely undocumented, and the main description adds no parameter-level meaning. The body description in the schema is an auto-generated serialization note about custom_fields rather than an explanation of the request payload. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Partial update quote line item' with the exact HTTP path 'PATCH /quotes/{quote_id}/line-items/{id}/'. This clearly distinguishes it from quote-level updates (wafeq_quotes_partial_update) and full line-item updates (wafeq_quotes_line_items_update), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 is given on when to choose a partial update (PATCH) over a full update (PUT), when to use create/destroy instead, or how to obtain the required quote_id and line-item id. The agent is left to infer usage from the HTTP method alone.

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