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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: partial update semantics ('Envie só os campos a alterar') and batched execution via 'ids'. It does not fully explain batch failure behavior or return/error details, but it goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The bulk support detail is separated cleanly and earns its place.

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 main update and bulk scenarios, but it leaves ambiguity about how id and ids interact, especially since id is required in the schema. It also does not enumerate the accepted named fields or describe the output/return behavior, despite there being no output schema to compensate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies id for single update, ids for batch, and extra for changed/custom fields, but the phrase 'nomeados + extra' implies named updatable fields that are not actually present in the schema. The structure of extra is also left undefined, which is a meaningful gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza um processo existente por ID' (updates an existing lawsuit by ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create/get/list lawsuit tools, and the bulk note is still clearly about the same update operation.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to update an existing lawsuit by ID and send only the fields to change. It also hints at batch usage via 'ids'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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