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

Reveals non-obvious behavior: partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), duration preservation when only start is provided, and appointment_id retention. With all annotations set to false, these details carry the behavioral burden and are consistent with the annotations.

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?

Well-structured as a lead paragraph plus bullet list, with each element earning its place: use case, anti-pattern warning, and parameter semantics. Slightly redundant between the generic 'mudar algo' and the enumerated examples, but not padded.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core single-edit workflow thoroughly. It leaves gaps around the plural array parameters and responsible fields, which could mislead an agent attempting more advanced or bulk edits.

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?

Adds meaning for appointment_id, start (with ISO example and duration-preservation nuance), end, title, location, and all_day. However, responsible_id, responsible_ids, and appointment_ids appear in the schema but are completely undocumented, and with 0% schema coverage the description does not fully compensate.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Edita'), a specific resource ('COMPROMISSO/evento da agenda do Astrea'), and a defining constraint ('altera no lugar, PRESERVANDO o appointment_id'). This clearly differentiates it from create and exclude siblings even without a title.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('sempre que precisar mudar algo de um compromisso já criado'), gives concrete examples, and explicitly warns against the delete-and-recreate anti-pattern because it breaks references. It does not directly name the sibling tools as alternatives, but the when/when-not logic is very clear.

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