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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent; the description reinforces mutation with `[write, altera dados]` and adds the batch-execution behavior. It does not disclose more context such as whether omitted fields are replaced, whether authentication is needed, or what errors might occur.

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: it starts with the exact operation and endpoint, then adds the bulk-support caveat. Every line adds value, and no unnecessary words beyond the inline write tag are present.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too sparse for correct invocation. It explains what the tool does and that bulk is supported, but leaves `body` and `account` behavior unexplained, creating a substantive gap for how to actually call the tool.

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%, and the description only gives partial meaning to `id` (single record via PUT path) and `ids` (bulk execution). The important parameters `body` and `account` are not explained, so the agent cannot reliably determine the update payload or which account context is required.

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 identifies this as the edit/update operation for Compras, with the exact HTTP method and endpoint: 'Editar (PUT /api/compras/{id})'. This distinguishes it from sibling create, delete, get, and list operations 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?

It communicates that the tool edits existing Compras records and that batch execution is possible via `ids`, so the agent knows when to select it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as create/delete/get, leaving the guidance somewhat implied.

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