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

The description includes a tag '[write, altera dados]' indicating the tool modifies data, which aligns with the annotations that readOnlyHint=false. The bulk support note adds behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like whether partial updates are supported, how errors are handled, or if there are any side effects. The description is minimal and does not add substantial beyond annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences plus a tag. It front-loads the core purpose and the bulk support detail. However, the tag '[write, altera dados]' is arguably redundant with the annotations and could be removed for even more 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain expected request body format, the role of 'account', or the response. For an update tool, it should clarify the type of data being edited and any constraints. The bulk support note helps but overall completeness is low.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions bulk support for 'ids' and implies that 'id' is the primary identifier, but it does not explain the 'body' or 'account' parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value; it doesn't specify what the body should contain or how account is used. There is a significant gap in parameter documentation.

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 'Vendas: Editar (PUT /api/vendas/{id})' which names the specific verb (edit/update) and resource (vendas), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gestaoclick_vendas_create or gestaoclick_vendas_delete. The 'PUT' specification clarifies the HTTP method. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools for different entities, but the resource name is clear.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution' which hints at when to use this tool with multiple IDs, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus other update tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions. The lack of context about when single vs bulk update is appropriate is a gap.

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