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

The annotations already signal a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description's '[write, altera dados]' largely restates that in words. It adds the HTTP endpoint path, but no details about side effects, partial vs. full update, or consequences of calling it with different parameters. With annotations already covering the write nature, the description adds little beyond what is structured.

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 extremely short and the key verb/resource appears first. The redundancy between 'edição' and 'altera dados' is minor, and the bracket tag is compact. Overall it is efficiently sized, though not as informative as it could be.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, this description does not give an agent enough to call the tool correctly. There is no mention of required body format, expected response, or any prerequisites. For a mutating tool, this is severely incomplete.

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 exposes 'body', 'query', and 'account' as plain strings with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. There is no meaning given for what the body should contain, how query is used, or what account refers to. Since the description does not compensate for the empty schema, parameters remain completely 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 identifies the verb 'Edição' (edit) and the resource 'consumo', and gives the endpoint 'PUT /consumo/put', so an agent can determine the core operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like superlogica_consumo_put_create or superlogica_consumo_list, but 'edição' plus the 'update' in the tool name make the distinction clear enough.

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 provides no context about when to use this tool rather than the create or list siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the generic verb 'edit'.

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