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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint false; the description goes further by stating OData PATCH semantics, that `data` holds fields to change, and that ids enables batch execution. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not cover auth, validation, or response details.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, endpoint, and a separate bulk-support note. Every sentence is informative with no filler; the minor awkwardness in 'um(a) Processos/litígios' and the parenthetical OData reference are acceptable.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the endpoint, core semantics, and batch behavior. But it omits any detail about expected response, validation, or which fields can be updated, making it adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 burden; it explains `data` as 'campos a alterar' and identifies `ids` as batch support, which the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not explain the `id` parameter's role or enumerate allowed fields for `data`, leaving significant gaps.

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 opens with 'Atualiza um(a) Processos/litígios' – a clear verb (updates) and resource (litigations) – and reinforces it with the OData PATCH endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling legalone_update_lawsuits tool, and the mixed 'Processos/litígios' phrasing adds slight ambiguity.

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?

It tells the agent this tool updates litigations and mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution,' which is a concrete usage hint. But it never explains when to prefer this over legalone_update_lawsuits or other update tools, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.

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