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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[write, altera dados]' and the PUT verb. It adds no deeper behavioral context such as what happens to existing data or whether the edit is partial or full, but there is no contradiction and the mutation semantics are sufficiently clear for a simple update.

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 short sentence with the endpoint and write tag, and the key verb-resource pair is front-loaded. It is concise with no fluff, though the '[write, altera dados]' tag is somewhat redundant with the verb 'editar'.

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?

There is no output schema, and the parameters are entirely undocumented. The description explains what the operation does but not what the body should contain, what query/account mean, or what a successful response looks like, leaving essential calling details missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no meaning to the three string parameters: body, query, and account. An agent has no information about what payload, query string, or account identifier to provide, making the tool effectively opaque.

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 ('Editar'), a resource ('cobrança'), and the HTTP endpoint (PUT /cobranca/update), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes from sibling cobrança operations like create, liquidar, or excluir at a basic level, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_cobranca_create or superlogica_cobranca_liquidar. The verb 'Editar' implies editing an existing charge, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are given.

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