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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[write, altera dados]' and the PUT method. It adds the bulk-support behavior, but does not disclose details like idempotency implications, response behavior, or side effects beyond mutation.

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 extremely compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and method, and the bulk-support note adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the request body, account usage, and the relationship between 'id' and 'ids'. It only provides the endpoint and bulk hint, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the 'ids' parameter via the bulk-support note; 'id', 'body', and 'account' remain unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity about how to construct a valid update request.

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 operation: 'Editar (PUT /api/servicos/{id})', specifying the HTTP method, endpoint, and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gestaoclick_servicos_create, gestaoclick_servicos_get, gestaoclick_servicos_list, and gestaoclick_servicos_delete.

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 implies this tool is for editing existing services via PUT and adds a useful bulk-execution note ('accepts ids for batched execution'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create/delete/get, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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