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

Annotations only supply readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false; the description adds that this is a PUT operation requiring a complete body that includes the record code, giving useful behavioral context about payload expectations. It does not contradict the annotations, though it stops short of describing auth, error, or response behavior.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the critical payload constraint without filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no detailed input schema, and a pointer to the 'official API' rather than an embedded definition, the description leaves important invocation details unspecified: exact required fields, response/return behavior, error conditions, and relationship to create/get counterparts. It is enough for basic selection but not for confident invocation in complex cases.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0% and a generic 'data' object that has no specific properties, the description partially compensates by explaining that data must be the full official API body and must include the code field. It still omits a concrete field list or format, so it only partially replaces the missing schema detail.

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 starts with the specific action 'Atualiza' (updates) and the resource 'Pessoas' with clarifying types (clientes, partes, advogados, contatos), plus the HTTP endpoint PUT /pessoa. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like projuris_create_pessoa and projuris_get_pessoa.

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 implies the tool is for updating an existing person and reinforces that the full body must include the record code, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create or get/consulta tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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