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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only. The description adds the required authorization scope, partial-update semantics, and bulk behavior via order_bump_ids/offer_ids. There is no contradiction with the annotations; the write nature implied by 'Atualiza' matches readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core action and partial-update behavior are front-loaded, followed by the scope requirement and bulk support, which is the ideal structure for a tool definition.

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 with 11 parameters, minimal annotations, and no output schema, this description is helpful but incomplete. It does not clarify whether bulk calls still require order_bump_id, and account/position are not explained, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. It maps 'oferta' to offer_id/offer_ids, 'preço de referência' to reference_price, 'imagem' to show_image, and mentions bulk IDs. However, account, position, cta/title/description, and the relationship between order_bump_id and order_bump_ids are left unexplained.

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 opens with 'Atualiza um order bump existente', a specific verb and resource, further narrowed by '(parcial: envie só o que muda)'. It enumerates what can be changed (offer, reference price, copy, image), which clearly distinguishes this update operation from list/get/create 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 clearly says this is for existing order bumps, explicitly limits updates to partial changes, and states the required 'write products' scope. It does not explicitly name create/list as alternatives, but the 'existente' qualifier plus bulk guidance gives an agent enough context for the common update-vs-create decision.

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