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

The description explicitly marks the operation as '[write, altera dados]', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and confirms this is a mutating call. It adds the endpoint and the target domain, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing values. This is useful but minimal context beyond 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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the domain, action, and endpoint. There is no wasted text, though it is so brief that it omits essential parameter and usage details. It earns its place but at the cost of completeness.

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 write tool with three completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It conveys intent but gives an agent no way to construct the request correctly, choose the right parameter values, or understand the response. This is materially worse than a tool with partially documented parameters.

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 schema has three string parameters (body, query, account) with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description does not explain what any of these parameters mean, how they map to the condominium or configuration value, or what the request payload should look like. An agent cannot determine how to populate body, query, or account from this definition.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Alterar valor de uma configuração específica de um condomínio' with the endpoint POST /configuracoes. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools, though the tool name 'create' versus 'alterar' creates slight ambiguity about whether a new configuration is created or an existing one is updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_configuracoes_list, superlogica_configuracoes_list_get, or configuration-related tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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