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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: this is a two-phase prepare action that does not execute, credentials must never be passed as arguments, pagination is via resultadoId, and new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal. Note the mild tension between 'sem executa-la' and destructiveHint=true, but it describes the preparation step rather than contradicting the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then ordered workflow constraints, each sentence carrying a distinct rule (confirmation, credential ban, pagination, payment data). Slightly verbose but no dead weight; the repetitive 'Alterar funcionario' opener mirrors the title.

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 workflow, credential and payment restrictions, and result-retrieval path are well covered, which is valuable for a complex mutation. However, with a deeply nested schema at 0% description coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without any guidance on the form's many fields, which is the main thing it needs to call this tool correctly.

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% and the single top-level parameter wraps a large nested object with dozens of undocumented fields. The description only says 'os campos seguem o contrato da API', which provides no field-level meaning, so it fails to compensate for the near-total absence of parameter 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?

States a specific verb+resource (alterar funcionario) and adds the crucial qualifier that it only prepares the action without executing it. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling mutations like gover_incluir_funcionario or gover_alterar_centro_custo, but the prepare/confirm framing makes its role identifiable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: show parameters to the user, and only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao; for large outputs use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId. This names the follow-up tools and the condition for each, though it never states when NOT to use this tool.

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