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

The description warns that omitted fields are zeroed ('ATENCAO: envie o payload COMPLETO - campos omitidos sao zerados'), a critical behavioral trait for a full-replacement update. It also states ownership validation. The annotation idempotentHint=true aligns with the description, as full replacement is idempotent. No contradictions.

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 paragraph of three concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately following with critical usage instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow (fetch first, then update complete payload), ownership validation, and the risk of zeroed fields. However, it does not reference the output schema or explain the response. Given the complexity (23 params, high mutation risk), a brief note about return values would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage (no parameter-level descriptions in the schema). The description does not explain individual fields like Cfop, AliqIcms, etc. It only provides high-level advice to send the complete payload. Given the large number of parameters, the lack of parameter semantics is a significant 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?

The tool name 'tributacao_editar' translates to 'edit taxation rule', and the description states 'Atualiza uma regra de tributacao existente' (updates an existing taxation rule), clearly identifying the verb (update) and resource (taxation rule). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tributacao_consultar' (query) and 'tributacao_criar' (create).

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 explicitly requires the 'Id' parameter ('Id obrigatorio') and instructs the agent to first call 'tributacao_consultar' to obtain current data, then send the complete payload with modifications. It also mentions ownership validation by IdEmpresa (implied in context). This provides clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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