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

The description includes a clear warning that it alters PRODUCTION data and that there is no staging environment (homologação). This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and provides critical behavioral context for the agent.

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 somewhat cluttered with repeated resource lists and auto-generated annotations like 'Flattened action' and 'Bulk support'. The core instructions are intermixed with warnings and generic statements, making it less concise than it could be.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks important details such as the expected format of the 'body' payload, the exact behavior of an update (partial vs. full), error handling, or return values. It only partially covers the operation's scope.

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?

It explains that id is needed for update/patch/delete, parent_id for nested resources, and that bulk execution uses ids. However, it does not explain the 'body' parameter (what JSON structure is expected) or the 'account' parameter. The resource enum is listed redundantly, but other parameters remain underexplained.

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 mentions the domain (Financeiro) and the action 'update' in the tool name, but the text says 'escrita: cria/atualiza/remove' (write: create/update/delete), which could apply to all write tools. It does not explicitly state that this tool is exclusively for updating existing records, especially given separate create/delete/patch siblings.

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 some guidance on required parameters (id for update/patch/delete, parent_id for nested resources, bulk support via ids) but does not clearly differentiate when to use this tool vs. create, patch, or delete. It does not mention when an update is preferred over a patch, and lacks explicit 'use this when...' instructions.

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