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

The description explicitly notes '[write, altera dados]', which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and adds a clear write-behavior signal. It also discloses bulk support via ids. However, it does not describe effects, response behavior, or any side effects beyond the annotation-implied write nature.

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 very short and front-loaded with the endpoint and write intent. The bulk-support note is a useful addition. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices some completeness.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and bulk support but omits parameter semantics for body/account, response details, and any prerequisite or error context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 must compensate. It explains that 'ids' enables batched execution, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of 'id', 'body', or 'account'. This leaves most parameters under-specified for an 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 'Campos extras ordens serviço' via PUT /api/atributos_ordens_servicos/{id}, using the verb 'Editar' and naming the resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling create/delete/get/list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Editar' implies updating, and 'Bulk support' hints at batch usage, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling update tools.

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