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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description adds risk level, write scope, and the concrete effect ('Atualiza Task'), plus the important availability caveat. It still omits whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared and how null assignee_id/due_date behaves.

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 sentences, action first, scope/risk/effect metadata compactly separated on the second line. The metadata line is dense jargon but every element carries operational value.

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 write tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers purpose, effect and availability, but leaves the core mutation semantics unexplained: whether it is a partial patch or full replace, and what null values do. An agent could still call it, but without confidence about side effects on unspecified fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming five of the six editable fields and covering 'done' through 'Conclui/reabre'; only the required 'id' is implicit. It adds no format or null-clearing semantics, so it is meaningful but not exhaustive.

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 description gives a specific verb set ('Conclui/reabre ou edita') tied to the resource ('tarefa') and enumerates the editable attributes (título, descrição, prioridade, prazo, responsável). It is clearly distinguishable from create_task and list_tasks, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

It makes clear the two usage modes (mark done/reopen vs. edit fields) and carries an explicit 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização' notice, which tells the agent not to call it under the current scope. It does not, however, name alternatives such as create_task or state prerequisites like task ownership.

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