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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description mostly restates that with '[write, altera dados]'. It adds the PUT method but provides no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements, side effects, or which fields can be changed. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the resource and action. The bracketed '[write, altera dados]' is slightly redundant with 'Editar', but the overall length is appropriate.

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 3-parameter update operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, this description is far too thin. It gives the purpose but none of the request construction details needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 none of body, query, or account are explained. The description says nothing about payload format, required fields, or how the identifier should be passed, so an agent cannot build a correct request.

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 action ('Editar dados condomínio') and the HTTP endpoint, clearly marking this as the update operation for condominium data. It is clear enough, but it does not explicitly compare itself to the create/get sibling tools, so it loses a point for missing sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied by 'Editar dados condomínio' — use it when editing existing condominium data. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus superlogica_condominios_create or superlogica_condominios_get, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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