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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description needs to add context such as what is overwritten or side effects. Instead it only restates the mutation, and notably omits that the call can also write notes and deal_value — side effects an agent would not expect from a 'status update'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the intent cue; nothing is padding. Minor deduction because the intent sentence adds little beyond what the first already implies.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it frames the tool as a status/stage change while the schema also permits appending notes and changing deal_value, which changes what the agent is committing to. The rich schema partially compensates, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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%, including enum values for status and the conditional funil note pointing to list_pipelines, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own — it never mentions contact_id, status, pipeline_stage_name, notes, deal_value, or funil.

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 ("status ou estágio no pipeline de um contato"), so the resource acted on is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as update_contact, update_deal, or update_pipeline_stage, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use para mover leads pelo funil de vendas" gives a positive when-to-use cue (funnel progression), but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., needing a pipeline stage from list_pipelines), and no named alternative for plain field edits versus update_contact.

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