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

The description adds some behavioral context by saying the operation excludes reports from the accountability and tags it as a write that changes data, but this mostly restates readOnlyHint=false. It does not clarify whether 'Excluir' permanently deletes reports or only removes them from a selection, and it gives no side-effect, auth, or reversibility information.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the domain and action, and includes the endpoint and a write tag with no filler. It is concise, although 'Prestação de contas' appears twice and '[write, altera dados]' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and only sparse annotations. The description identifies the action and endpoint but is far from sufficient for correct invocation because the meaning and format of body, query, and account are entirely unexplained.

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?

The schema exposes three string parameters — body, query, and account — with zero descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description provides no information about how to construct or use any of these parameters, so an agent cannot know what the body should contain, what query fields are valid, or how account is used.

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 action ('Excluir relatórios') and a resource ('da prestação de contas'), and includes the endpoint PUT /relatoriosselecao/put. It is understandable and actionable, though the verb 'Excluir' sits uneasily with the tool name 'put_update' and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from relatoriosselecao_put_create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as superlogica_relatoriosselecao_put_create or superlogica_relatoriosselecao_list. The 'Prestação de contas' tag and the action itself are the only clues, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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