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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, and the phrase '[write, altera dados]' mostly restates that rather than adding new behavioral context. It does not explain side effects, authentication needs, file handling behavior, or what happens on success or failure.

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 compact line with the domain prefix, action, endpoint, and write indicator; it contains no filler or repetition. The most identifying information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a write tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and almost no behavioral or usage context. Given only an endpoint and a generic schema, an agent has very little chance of invoking it 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 the three parameters (body, query, account) are generic strings. The description does not say what each parameter means, what the request body should contain, or how files should be attached, leaving an agent unable to construct valid inputs.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Despesas: Anexar arquivos') and adds the HTTP endpoint POST /despesas/anexar, which makes the tool's role reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling file tools such as superlogica_arquivos_create, so it falls just short of full 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than the many expense/file sibling tools, and no mention of preconditions such as needing an existing expense or file payload. The only implied use case is attaching files to despesas, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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