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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'de forma versionada' (in a versioned manner), which hints at versioning behavior, but does not disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to omitted fields, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise without being truncated, though it could benefit from additional structure to separate purpose from behavior.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, required fields, session_token usage, or the versioning mechanism. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter names, their purposes, or expected formats. It only alludes to 'perfil público' and 'preferências de conversa', which vaguely correspond to some fields but provide no usable semantics for an agent to map values.

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 ('Atualiza') and resource ('perfil público e as preferências de conversa do participante'), and the versioned aspect is a distinguishing detail. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other nexo_* tools that might also update profile-related data.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (like needing a valid session_token), and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when or why one would invoke it.

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