wafeq_units_of_measure_update

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the PUT method and says it updates an existing record, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose full-replace semantics, required-field handling, or any side effects beyond the annotation-implied mutation.

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 it repeats the same idea three times: 'WRITE · updates data', 'Update unit of measure', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing unit of measure'. It would be tighter with a single clear sentence.

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?

Annotations and schema cover idempotency, safety, and field meaning, so the tool is minimally callable. Still, there is no output schema and no explanation of the difference between this full update and the partial_update sibling, leaving some contextual ambiguity for an agent choosing among similar update tools.

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 schema already provides descriptions for name, name_ar, is_active, and idempotency_key, so the description does not need to restate them. However, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the required 'id' parameter lacks a schema description; the endpoint template partially compensates by showing it as a path 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 clearly states the operation: 'Update unit of measure' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing unit of measure', with the resource and HTTP method explicit. It is unambiguous about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling wafeq_units_of_measure_partial_update.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as partial_update, create, or destroy. 'Updating an existing unit of measure' implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons.

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