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

The annotations already communicate non-read-only behavior, and the description reinforces this with '[write, altera dados]'. It adds the concrete HTTP method and discloses the bulk execution behavior, which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The bulk-support note is valuable, though the '[write, altera dados]' label is somewhat redundant with readOnlyHint=false and does not add much meaning.

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 mutating tool with several parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the body payload format, the role of the account parameter, or the result/error behavior, so an agent may not invoke it correctly without assumptions.

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 parameter-meaning burden. It only explains that ids enables batch execution; id, body, and account remain vague, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct request payload reliably.

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 action ('Editar' / edit), the resource ('Orçamentos'), and the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /api/orcamentos/{id}). This makes it easy to distinguish from the create, delete, list, and get siblings 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 useful operational guidance by noting bulk support via the ids parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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