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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description adds only '[write, altera dados]', which roughly restates the same idea. No context is provided about what the reversal does to existing records, whether it can be undone, or any authorization or state requirements. With no contradiction to annotations but very little added behavioral detail, this falls short.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff: domain, action, endpoint, and a write-indicator are present. It is concise and scannable, evn though it lacks depth.

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?

Despite annotations and an endpoint, the tool still has three completely unexplained parameters and no output schema or behavior details. The description is not sufficient for an agent to construct a correct call, especially since 'body' likely needs structure and 'account' likely identifies the tenant.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about 'body', 'query', or 'account'. All three parameters are undocumented strings, and required params is 0, so the agent has no way to know what to send. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the operation ('Estornar despesa' = reverse expense), the resource (despesas), and the HTTP endpoint (PUT /despesas/estornar). It is specific enough to distinguish this from siblings like superlogica_despesas_liquidar or superlogica_despesas_delete, but it does not explicitly explain what 'estornar' entails or contrast it with other reversal tools (e.g., cobranca_estornar).

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 the many sibling alternatives. No preconditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer from the name and endpoint alone.

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