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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description says 'atualiza endereço' adding no further behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single paragraph listing multiple actions, which is somewhat verbose for a tool focused on one action. It front-loads the flattened action but includes extra details that could be streamlined. Not overly long but could be more concise.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers basic usage (required IDs) but lacks details on parameter types, data format, return values, and error handling. Bulk support is mentioned but not explained. The tool is complex enough to warrant more complete guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions customer_id, address_id, and bulk versions (customer_ids, address_ids) but does not explain what 'data' should contain (presumably JSON with address fields). The description provides some context but not enough to fully understand parameter formats and requirements.

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 states the tool is for updating an address (flattened action: update_address), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it also lists other actions (create, update customer, create/delete address), causing some ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like create_address and delete_address by explicitly mentioning the flattened action.

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 tells when to use the tool for update_address (requires customer_id and address_id) and mentions bulk support. But it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternative sibling tools like 'pagarme_customers_write_create_address' for creation. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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