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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description reinforces that with '[write, altera dados]' and the PUT method. It also adds a bulk behavior trait, but it does not disclose auth requirements, response format, or side effects of updating, so it only partially goes beyond the 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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. There is no wasted wording, but it is terse enough that important parameter details like body and account are omitted.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the body payload, account usage, id/ids interaction, or any expected response/errors, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'ids' enables batched execution, but it does not explain what 'body' or 'account' mean, nor the relationship between 'id' and 'ids'.

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 clientes via PUT /api/clientes/{id}, giving a specific verb, resource, and HTTP method. This distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/get/list tools for the same resource.

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 clear context that this tool is for editing existing clientes, and the bulk-support note explicitly tells the agent it can accept multiple ids for batched execution. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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