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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it alters data and supports batch execution, which is extra behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose other side effects or response details.

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 short and front-loaded, with two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds bulk support. No fluff or redundant information.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It doesn't explain the body format, the meaning of 'account', or how a single update differs from bulk. Significant ambiguity remains for agents.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'ids' parameter for bulk support, leaving 'id', 'body', and 'account' undocumented. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 it updates a loss reason ('Atualizar motivo de perda') and specifies the HTTP PUT endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get/list tools. It also mentions bulk support, adding a unique capability.

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 existing loss reasons and explicitly notes bulk support for batched execution, guiding when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives but the context is clear enough.

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