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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only operation, but the description adds that the request must be the full body per the official API and must include the record code. This is useful though it does not disclose response behavior, error cases, or side effects beyond full replacement.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that conveys the operation, HTTP method, and the key parameter constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter API wrapper the description captures the essential update semantics and data requirement, but with no output schema and sparse annotations it lacks detail on return values, errors, or alternative tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema only declares 'data' as a generic object with zero property descriptions. The description compensates partially by explaining that 'data' must be the complete API body including the record code, but it does not enumerate actual fields or structure.

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 uses a specific verb 'Atualiza' and resource 'Apontamento de horas', and includes the HTTP method PUT. It clearly distinguishes the update operation from sibling create/consulta/get tools for the same resource.

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 semantics of 'Atualiza' imply use for updating an existing timesheet record, and the instruction to include the record's code field gives a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create/get/consulta siblings or provide exclusions.

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