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

The description adds a significant warning that it alters production data and that there is no staging environment, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also mentions bulk execution via ids. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or idempotency (which is already hinted as false). The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 verbose, with redundancy such as repeating the list of resources and mixing multiple actions (create/update/remove) into the update-specific tool. While organized, it could be more concise and focused on the update action alone. The repeated warnings and lists add length without proportional value.

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 provides essential context: it targets people resources, lists the writable sub-resources, specifies required parameters, warns about production impact, and notes bulk support. Given the absence of an output schema, the description gives enough operational context for a user to understand what the tool does and its critical constraints. It is fairly complete for the given information.

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?

The description explains that `id` is required for update, `parent_id` for nested resources, and that `body` is JSON. It also clarifies bulk support with `ids` and `parent_ids`. However, it does not explain the `account`, `resource`, or `action` parameters beyond listing resources, leaving some ambiguity. The parameter documentation is partial.

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 states it handles people resources and mentions 'escrita: cria/atualiza/remove' (create/update/remove), but the tool name is specifically 'write_update'. It later clarifies 'Flattened action: update', but the initial mention of create/remove introduces ambiguity. The purpose is reasonably clear but not sharply distinguished from create/patch/delete 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 conditions like 'update/patch/delete exigem `id`' and nested resources requiring `parent_id`, and warns about production data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the create, patch, or delete variants. The guidance is present but not fully explicit regarding alternatives.

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