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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates this is not a read-only operation, and the description only restates this as '[write, altera dados]'. It adds no additional behavioral context such as required authentication, side effects, reversibility, or impact on related records.

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 short and technically front-loaded with the resource and verb, but it includes redundant tags like '[write, altera dados]' and a Portuguese category prefix. It is compact yet sacrifices useful information.

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 details, the description is not sufficient to call the tool correctly. It names the operation and endpoint but leaves the request construction and response behavior entirely unspecified.

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 description does not explain the meaning, format, or required usage of 'body', 'query', or 'account'. An agent has no way to construct a valid request from this description.

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 the action 'Editar despesa' (edit expense) and identifies the resource 'despesa' plus the endpoint PUT /despesas/post. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as superlogica_despesas_create, though the endpoint suffix 'post' creates some ambiguity about the HTTP method.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, liquidar, estornar, or list. With many closely related despesas siblings, an agent is left to infer the right context.

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