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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context not derivable from those hints: that assigning moves the tour out of its previous client and that null re-homes it to the "Sem cliente" bucket.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the edge case. Nothing repeats the name, title, or schema.

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 simple two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the only non-obvious input case. Missing only the side conditions an agent might need, such as whether the target client must exist or whether republishing is required.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by giving null clientId a concrete meaning (unassign to "Sem cliente") where the schema only permits null without explaining it. tourId is left to the schema, which documents its source (create_tour / list_tours).

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 and resource ("Coloca o tour num cliente") and immediately covers the negative case (clientId null removes the tour). No sibling tool performs client assignment, so the action is unambiguous against the surrounding tour/client tools.

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 tells the agent how to detach a tour (pass null), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as the client existing or the tour's publish state.

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