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

The description adds important behavioral warnings beyond the annotations: it 'mexe em dinheiro, irreversível' (handles money, is irreversible) and supports batch execution. These supplement the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints without contradicting them; destructiveHint=false refers to data destruction, not business-level irreversibility.

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 with the most important warning, and uses a compact action list. Listing all parent actions before clarifying the flattened update_buyer action adds minor noise, but overall it is efficient and structured.

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 that this is a non-idempotent, irreversible financial mutation with a nested data object and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance about data fields, account semantics, and failure/return behavior. The current description is not complete enough for confident 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 carry the parameter documentation burden. It explains 'id', 'data', and 'ids', but it does not explain 'account', and the internal structure of 'data' is left entirely unspecified. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema 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 identifies the specific action: 'update_buyer (id + data)' and labels it as '[Flattened action: update_buyer]'. This distinguishes it from sibling transaction write tools such as refund, chargeback, reissue, and generate_invoice.

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 gives clear context: it is a mutable, irreversible Guru transaction operation, and it notes bulk execution via 'ids'. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the flattened action label and action list make the intended use reasonably clear.

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