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

The description discloses that the tool uses PATCH (partial update) and that the version field for concurrency control is automatically fetched, so it need not be provided. It also notes bulk support. While annotations are neutral, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it omits details like error handling or immediate visibility of updates.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core action and method, lists editable fields, then provides usage alternatives and bulk support. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous text.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, bulk support, concurrency control), the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and key parameter details. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 by explaining the 'data' parameter as a JSON string with specific editable fields and notes that 'versao' is auto-fetched. However, it does not explain the 'id', 'ids', or 'account' parameters, leaving their semantics partially unclear.

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 clearly states the tool updates fields of an installment using PATCH, lists editable fields, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (contaazul_settle_installment and contaazul_delete_settlement) by naming them 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 explicitly states when not to use this tool for payment/settlement or reversal, directing to specific sibling tools. It also mentions bulk support for batched execution, providing clear guidance on usage scenarios.

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