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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not go beyond that. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing data is overwritten, whether it merges fields, or any validation rules. The '[write, altera dados]' tag is informative but already implied by the PUT method and the update verb. With annotations only indicating non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds minimal behavioral context, and there is no explanation of potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise, with only two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the HTTP method and resource, which is efficient. It also mentions the bulk support, which is relevant. The structure is clean and not verbose, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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 the tool is a mutation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about the request body, account parameter, and any specific behavior. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer too much. It covers the basic update operation but lacks details on required fields within 'body', error handling, or what constitutes a successful response. For a CRUD update on a specific attribute resource, with sibling tools for other attribute types, it is not sufficiently complete.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the parameters. It mentions 'ids' for batched execution and the endpoint includes {id}, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'body' (likely the payload with fields to update) or 'account' (likely account context). The description does not enrich the schema's parameter meanings; it only mentions bulk support. With low coverage and 4 parameters, this is a deficit.

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 'Campos extras de produtos: Editar (PUT /api/atributos_produtos/{id})' which identifies the tool's purpose as editing extra product fields. It is specifically about updating product attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list for the same resource. However, it could be more explicit about the resource scope ('atributos_produtos' vs 'produtos').

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 provides some guidance by explicitly mentioning the HTTP method (PUT) and the endpoint structure, which implies usage for updating existing records. It also states 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution,' giving a clue about when to use the 'ids' parameter. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, such as when to use create vs. update, or any conditions like 'do not use if record doesn't exist.'

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