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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the bulk support capability and repeats the write intent with '[write, altera dados]'. However, it does not disclose partial update semantics, authentication needs, or return behavior, so it provides only modest additional context beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and endpoint, followed by a brief note on bulk support. It contains no filler and every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with four parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It omits essential details about the 'body' parameter (what fields can be updated and their format), the 'account' parameter, and what the response contains. This leaves an agent unable to reliably construct a correct request.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the 'id' parameter via the endpoint path and introducing the 'ids' parameter for bulk execution. However, it leaves 'body' and 'account' unexplained, which are crucial for constructing a valid update request, so the semantic guidance is incomplete.

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 clearly states 'Atualizar atividade' (Update activity) and specifies the PATCH endpoint, making it obvious this tool updates an existing activity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like datacrazy_activities_create, delete, get, and list by using the verb 'atualizar' and the HTTP method.

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?

The description implies usage for updating activities via the verb 'atualizar' and the HTTP PATCH method, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions bulk support, which provides a specific usage scenario, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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