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

The description adds 'write, altera dados' and mentions bulk support, which provide some context beyond the annotations that already indicate readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or required authentication, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and HTTP method, then highlight the bulk feature. Every word contributes value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the 'body' payload structure, the role of 'account', or what the response looks like, and the bulk support is only lightly mentioned without usage details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it only mentions 'ids' for bulk execution. It says nothing about 'id', 'body', or 'account', leaving their meanings and formats unclear to the agent.

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 the tool edits extra fields of cadastros via PUT, with 'Editar' as the verb and 'atributos_cadastros' as the resource. It distinguishes this update tool from the sibling create/delete/get/list variants by specifying the action and 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?

Usage is implied from the tool name and context—this is for editing existing records—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the create or delete tools. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that this is the update operation.

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