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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the parameter-driven direction of the mutation (inativar:true deactivates, inativar:false reactivates) and the underlying API method mapping, which is non-obvious behavior. It does not, however, discuss permissions, side effects on child categories, or reversibility beyond the reactivation flag.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the identifier and flag semantics. Every sentence carries content, though the parenthetical API method names add slight noise for an agent that only needs the outcome.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the critical routing (group vs category) and the two key parameters but omits the semantics of five parameters, leaving real gaps for correct 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% and there are 7 parameters, yet the description only explains `categoria` (exact code/name with example) and `inativar`. It leaves `account`, `natureza`, `descricao`, `codigo_dre` and `tipo_categoria` completely undefined, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States specific verbs and resource (rename/adjust/deactivate a chart-of-accounts category) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings omie_create_category, omie_get_category and omie_list_categories. It even clarifies that Omie has no delete-category operation and that inactivating is the substitute, which pins down the operation's scope precisely.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives: there is no 'excluir categoria', so inactivation is the path, and it instructs the agent to look up the category first to decide between AlterarCategoria and AlterarGrupoCategoria. Both the trigger condition and the prerequisite lookup are stated.

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