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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description explains WHY it is destructive ('omitted fields are zeroed') and adds ownership/auth semantics (UserCreate check, IdEmpresa must be the logged company or 0). That is substantive context beyond the structured 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the required Id, then the critical warning, then ownership rules. Dense but every sentence (zeroing risk, consult-first, ownership) earns its place; slightly run-on but well prioritized.

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 need not be described, and the description covers the key gotchas for a destructive update (zeroing, ownership, read-before-write). Minor gap: it references an IdEmpresa not present in the input schema, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 11 parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description conveys the critical global semantic (send the full payload; omitted fields reset) and that Id is required, but gives no meaning for individual fields (Ean, Ncm, Cest, FatorConversao, etc.), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Atualiza) and resource (Produto existente), and names the sibling it complements (produto_consultar), so it is clearly distinguishable from produto_criar and produto_consultar without opening any schema.

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 prescribes the workflow: call produto_consultar first to fetch current data, then resend the whole payload plus changes. It also names the selection condition (an existing product the user owns) and the company constraint, leaving little to inference.

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