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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the edit action. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states purpose and technical detail (API method), and the second explains the key parameter and provides a usage hint. No words are wasted.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main parameter well and advises pre-consultation. However, it omits explanation of the account parameter and does not describe the return value or success/failure behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description explains that the data parameter is a JSON string containing the account key and fields to alter, adding meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. However, the optional account parameter is not described, leaving a small 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?

The description clearly states the tool edits an existing checking account (Edita uma conta corrente existente) and provides the API method name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like omie_create_checking_account and omie_list_checking_accounts.

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 advises users to consult omie_list_checking_accounts first to obtain the account key, which is a clear contextual guideline. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the advice is actionable and specific.

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