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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a write operation and supports bulk execution via ids. It does not mention required authentication/account context or any side effects like overwriting data. Given annotations do not cover these, the description provides minimal extra context beyond the write annotation.

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 two lines, very concise. It gets to the point, mentions the HTTP method and endpoint, and adds a note about bulk support. No fluff.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the 'body' should contain (likely the fields to update), how 'account' is used, or how bulk execution works (e.g., does it update all IDs with the same body?). The description leaves too much to inference for an agent to reliably invoke this 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%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'ids' for bulk support and the URL has {id}, but does not explain the 'body' or 'account' parameters. The schema has type information but no descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics for 'ids' but leaves 'body' and 'account' unexplained.

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 (PUT /api/ordens_servicos/{id})' which updates service orders. It also includes a write tag '[write, altera dados]'. It distinguishes from siblings which include create, delete, get, list for the same resource, and the name explicitly says 'update'.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions bulk support with 'ids' for batched execution. There is no statement about prerequisites like authentication, when to use update versus create or other operations, or exclusions.

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