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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the explicit '[write, altera dados]' and notes bulk execution, providing some extra context. No contradictions; however, it does not disclose error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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: two sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary purpose and then a note on bulk support. It earns its place without verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative without hurting conciseness.

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 an update tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the 'body' parameter (presumably the fields to update) or 'account' (likely needed for tenant context). Return behavior is also unspecified, making it incomplete for correct agent usage.

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 explain all parameters. It only addresses 'id' (via endpoint) and 'ids' (bulk support), leaving 'body' and 'account' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct a valid update request, especially what the body should contain.

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?

Description clearly states the action (edit suppliers) and the HTTP method plus endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, and list by specifying 'Editar' (update) and the PUT 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?

Mentions bulk support via 'ids', but does not clarify when to use this update tool versus other retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusion conditions. Guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.

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