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

The description includes the tag '[write, altera dados]', which confirms the operation is a write/mutation, but this largely repeats what the readOnlyHint=false annotation already conveys. It does not disclose important behavioral details such as what 'desfazer' actually does to the agreement, whether the action is reversible, what authentication is needed, or what side effects may occur.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters. While it is concise in wording, it is not appropriately sized because it omits essential invocation details.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It gives the domain ('Receitas / Acordos') and the HTTP method, but leaves the request body, query parameters, and account handling entirely unspecified.

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 defines three parameters (body, query, account) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, how to format them, or which are needed for this endpoint, leaving the agent without any usable parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Desfazer') and resource ('acordo'), and includes the exact HTTP endpoint (PUT /acordos/desfazer), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like superlogica_acordos_list and superlogica_acordos_put by naming the undo 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_acordos_put or superlogica_acordos_list. It provides no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions that would help an agent decide between this and related agreement tools.

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