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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the explicit write/altera dados label and the HTTP method, which confirms this is a modifying operation. However, it does not disclose details like required existing entity, permissions, or side effects beyond the basic edit behavior.

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 brief, front-loaded with the action and resource, and avoids lengthy prose. The bracketed [write, altera dados] tag and endpoint reference add some redundancy, and the URL suffix 'post' with a PUT method is slightly confusing, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 mutating tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no guidance on request body/query/account format. An agent would not be able to construct a correct call from the available information, so the definition is materially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with three undocumented string parameters (body, query, account), and the description provides no explanation of any of them. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation at all.

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 specific verb 'Editar' and the resource 'movimentação bancária', and gives the domain 'Condomínios / Contas bancárias'. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as create or estornar, though the edit semantics imply a distinction.

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 implies usage for editing an existing bank transaction rather than creating or reversing one, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling names like create and estornar exist, so the intended use is inferable but not articulated.

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