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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals critical API behavior: the version field is fetched automatically for concurrency control, unknown fields are rejected with an error rather than silently sent, and the API may return 200 while discarding fields and incrementing the version. This protects the agent from silent data loss, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense and front-loaded with the purpose and editable field list, then exclusions, then alternative tools, then bulk support. Every sentence adds value, though the long run-on style could benefit from bullet lists or clearer structural separation. It remains highly informative without 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 core calling contract: editable fields, field formats, non-editable fields, version handling, unknown-field rejection, alternative tools, and bulk support. Given there is no output schema, return behavior is not described, and the `account` parameter remains undocumented. This is a minor but real gap for full invocation confidence.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates substantially by enumerating editable fields in `data`, their formats, and the auto-fetched `versao`. It also mentions batched execution via `ids`. However, the `account` parameter is left completely unexplained, and the relationship between `id` and `ids` is only implicit.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Atualiza campos de uma parcela (PATCH)'. It precisely defines the operation as updating fields of an installment and distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by explicitly stating that payment/settlement and reversal belong to contaazul_settle_installment and contaazul_delete_settlement.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: for payment/baixa use contaazul_settle_installment, for reversal use contaazul_delete_settlement, and for category/cost-center fields use creation via contaazul_payable_create / contaazul_receivable_create. It also clarifies what is not editable in this tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it versus alternatives.

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