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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals full-replacement behavior, ownership validation (UserCreate and IdEmpresa), and the necessity of sending complete payload, adding significant context for the agent.

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 concise with two main sentences and a warning, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient with no wasted words.

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 the complexity (10 parameters, no param descriptions), the description covers critical behavioral aspects (full replacement, ownership, partial edit workaround). With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, making it reasonably complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains that Id is required (though schema marks it optional) and emphasizes complete payload. However, it does not detail other parameters nor compensate fully for the lack of schema descriptions, and the statement about Id being required contradicts the schema.

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 'Atualiza dados de um Cliente existente no cadastro' with specific verb (atualiza) and resource (Cliente existente), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cliente_criar and cliente_consultar.

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?

Explicitly warns 'envie o payload COMPLETO - campos omitidos sao zerados, nao preservados' and advises 'Para edicao parcial, faca cliente_consultar primeiro e mande os dados existentes mais o que muda', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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