wafeq_units_of_measure_partial_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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the PATCH method and endpoint path, but beyond the '🟡 WRITE · updates data' label (which duplicates annotation info) it discloses nothing new about behavior, such as that only supplied fields are modified or what happens on invalid input. No contradiction with annotations.

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 redundant: 'Partial update unit of measure' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing unit of measure' convey the same meaning twice. The header line with the emoji, method, and path is genuinely useful, but the duplicated sentence does not earn its place, making the structure wasteful rather than concise.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the core semantic of a partial update (only provided fields change), does not disambiguate from the full-update sibling or the similar wafeq_item_units_of_measure_partial_update (nested item-level variant), and gives no context on prerequisites or effects. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the tool-specific behavior is unexplained.

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 schema coverage at 67%, the schema documents the body fields (name, name_ar, is_active) and the idempotency_key well, but the required 'id' parameter has no schema description. The description adds nothing about any parameter — it never explains that 'id' is the unit-of-measure identifier or that body is optional. The description fails to compensate for the one undocumented required parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Partial update unit of measure' and 'Endpoint for partially updating an existing unit of measure.' The word 'partial' implicitly distinguishes it from the full-update sibling (wafeq_units_of_measure_update), and the header provides the HTTP method and endpoint path. However, it stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, and the same statement is repeated twice.

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 this tool versus the full-update sibling wafeq_units_of_measure_update, nor when not to use it. There is no mention of the partial-vs-full tradeoff (only provided fields change) or any alternatives. The only hint is the word 'partial,' which is too weak to count as implied usage guidance.

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