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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: reactivation past the quota incurs payment, and filters replace the entire scope rather than merging. That is useful non-obvious detail beyond 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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the two most decision-relevant facts (what it edits/pauses, and the payment precondition) are front-loaded. Nothing here repeats the tool name or wastes a clause.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with 7 fully-described params and no output schema, the description covers the mutation intent, the cost precondition and scope-replacement semantics. It omits any note on session/auth requirements (the schema mentions 'exige sessão' only for the email channel), which is a minor gap but not fatal.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the 'PATCH substitui o recorte inteiro; {} limpa' note on filtros). The description's 'Filtros substituem o recorte inteiro' largely restates that schema text, adding little. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource ('editar alerta') and enumerates the two modes of operation: editing interest vs. pausing/reactivating, scoped to 'o alerta do dono'. It is clearly distinguishable from criar_alerta or previa_alerta, but it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary, so it stays at 4.

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?

Gives one real precondition ('Reativação além da franquia exige pagamento'), which tells the agent when the operation may fail or cost money. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-criar_alerta/previa_alerta routing guidance, so usage is only implied.

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