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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description merely adds '[write, altera dados]', which mostly restates that this is a mutating operation. No information is provided about side effects, required authorization, or reversibility beyond what annotations already convey.

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 starts with the domain and operation, which is good. However, it contains redundancy ('write' and 'altera dados' repeat the same idea) and omits essential parameter context, so its brevity is a weakness rather than a strength.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is not sufficient for an agent to know what to provide in body, query, or account. It identifies the endpoint and the high-level action but leaves critical invocation details 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%, with three parameters (body, query, account) left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, making it impossible to construct a correct call from the provided information.

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 conta'), a clear resource ('Condomínios / Plano de contas'), and the HTTP method (PUT). This is enough to identify the intended operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling superlogica_planocontas_putconta.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_planocontas_putconta or superlogica_planocontas_deleteconta. The write/edit context is implied, but no exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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