PATCH /recurringSale/:id (Recurring Sale)

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

Annotations indicate it modifies data (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive. The description only lists editable fields, lacking details on side effects, authorization needs, or behavior when fields are omitted. The openWorldHint is present but not explained.

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 concise with two short paragraphs: first states purpose, second lists fields. No unnecessary information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, no description of response or errors. The description does not explain the PATCH semantics (partial update) or what happens to omitted fields. Lacks completeness for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters (id and body) but body's inner structure is unspecified. The description lists the editable fields (requesterId, amount, quantity, etc.), adding significant value beyond the schema. It helps the agent understand what can be updated.

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 clearly states it edits fields of a recurring sale, using the verb 'Edição de campos' (editing fields). The title indicates PATCH method and resource. It is well-distinguished from sibling tools like create, delete, end, and get.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide context for prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name alone.

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