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

Annotations only provide generic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the PUT method and bulk execution via ids, but it does not explain batch semantics, atomicity, failure behavior, or whether `data` must be a JSON string. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and endpoint, and the second adds bulk behavior, earning every word.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the core operation and bulk capability but omits return-value expectations, data encoding details, and account semantics. It is adequate for a simple update tool but leaves operational uncertainty for an agent.

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 clarifies that `id` identifies the client and `data` contains the fields to change, and it mentions `ids` for bulk. However, it does not explain the format of `data`, how `id` and `ids` interact, or what the `account` parameter means, 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 'Altera um cliente' and explicitly states the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /v1/clientes/{id}), making the action and target resource unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/list tools.

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 verb 'Altera' implies this tool is for modifying an existing customer, and the bulk-support note adds usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus mercos_create_cliente or mercos_list_clientes, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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