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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only via readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces that with '[write, altera dados]' while specifying that the status field is the target. It adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations and omits side effects, reversibility, and authentication details, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the endpoint included. The bracketed '[write, altera dados]' tag is largely redundant with the annotations, but overall the description is appropriately short.

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?

The purpose and endpoint are clear, but the tool has three opaque string parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation. The description does not explain how to construct the body, query, or account values, making reliable invocation unlikely.

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?

All three parameters (body, query, account) are plain strings with no schema descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain any of them, so an agent has no meaningful guidance on what values to provide.

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 ('Alterar status'), a specific resource ('processo'), and the exact endpoint (PUT /processos/alterarstatus). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superlogica_processos_create, superlogica_processos_list, and superlogica_processos_delete.

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 makes clear this tool is for changing the status of an existing judicial process, which gives the agent a usable trigger context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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