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

The description adds a '[write, altera dados]' tag and the PUT method, which go slightly beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, consequences, or response behavior. The annotations already cover the basic read/write profile, so the additional value is modest but not contradictory.

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 line with no filler; the key operation and endpoint are front-loaded and the write tag is concise. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and three opaque parameters, the description is too sparse. The agent still does not know what body/query/account contain, what request shape is expected, or what the response looks like, so the tool cannot be invoked correctly based on this description alone.

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% for the three string parameters (body, query, account), and the description offers no explanation of their meaning, format, or optionality. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Editar ocorrência' – edit occurrence), the resource ('Ocorrências'), and the HTTP method/endpoint (PUT /ocorrencias). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling occurrence tools such as create, delete, list, and add-suggestion.

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 the many sibling tools. It does not state that it should be used for existing occurrences rather than superlogica_ocorrencias_create, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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