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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses the critical destructive behavior that omitted fields are zeroed rather than preserved, plus ownership validation (UserCreate) and empresa-scoping rules. This is the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot 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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then the full-payload warning, then the alternative workflow, then ownership rules. Dense but each sentence carries weight; only minor redundancy in the ownership 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?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, and the mutation risks are explained. However, with 0% param coverage and references to a non-existent IdEmpresa plus a required-Id claim that conflicts with the schema, the definition leaves real gaps for a 10-param mutation tool.

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% across 10 params, so the description should carry the field-level burden but does not. Worse, it states "Id e obrigatorio" while the schema's required list is only CpfCnpj/Nome, and it references an IdEmpresa field that does not exist in the schema, so it misleads on parameters rather than clarifying them.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Atualiza dados de um Cliente existente no cadastro"), making it clearly distinct from cliente_criar and cliente_consultar. An agent can immediately tell this is the update path for an existing customer.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use a full payload for edits, and for partial edits call cliente_consultar first and resend existing data plus changes. It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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