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

Annotations only mark it non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond that: slug normalization rules, minimum length, the slug_taken/reserved_slug/no_page/page_exists/monitor_not_found failure modes, atomic create-or-nothing on bad monitor ids, old-address redirect + reservation, and that the response flags monitors still checking the old address with no automatic change. Nothing here contradicts the 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core edit action and sibling boundaries come first, then creation semantics, then errors and return shape. The single unbroken paragraph with em-dashes carries a lot of load and would scan faster as short labeled bullets, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return (a nova URL, lista de monitores no endereço antigo, códigos de erro). Combined with the create-vs-update branch and the required-on-create trio, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on both paths.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: name/slug/monitorIds become mandatory only on the creation path, monitorIds is the public-visibility control (ids from listar_monitores, "all", or []), and slug normalization plus 3-character minimum is restated as a constraint on the resulting value rather than the input format.

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 (altera) plus the exact resource (status page pública da conta) and enumerates every field it touches (nome, endereço, descrição, links, logo, favicon). It goes further by naming the siblings that own adjacent concerns — estruturar_pagina for sections/monitors and vincular_canal for alerts — so an agent can separate it from those tools without opening a 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?

Explicit routing: sections and monitor list belong to estruturar_pagina, alert recipients to vincular_canal, and 'esta tool não mexe em alertas' closes the ambiguity. It also states the when-not-yet-exists path (statusPage null in ver_conta) and the preconditions that then apply, plus a 'Só os campos enviados mudam' partial-update rule.

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