guard_update_purpose

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context on top: a draft is created from the published version if none exists, the published version stays live until released, unmentioned fields (contexts, collection points, LIA) are preserved, and concurrent drafts block agent edits. That is exactly the kind of concurrency and side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 action and its draft semantics, then prerequisites and concurrency caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the description is long and a couple of clauses (context selection, resumo explanation) could be tightened.

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 21-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: auth requirement, partial-update semantics, draft lifecycle, and the human-in-the-loop conflict rule. It does not describe the return value or what happens on validation failure, but no output schema exists and the core decision information is present.

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?

With 21 parameters at 76% schema coverage, the schema carries most of the load, but the description adds a genuinely important semantic the schema alone does not make obvious: partial-update behavior (only send changed fields, everything else preserved). It also clarifies resumo's purpose and the law-based context selection. The remaining 20+ domain fields are left to the schema.

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 precise verb+resource+state: 'Edita uma finalidade existente como RASCUNHO'. It further distinguishes the flow from create_purpose and cancel_purpose_draft by explaining the published-vs-draft relationship, so an agent knows exactly which sibling to pick.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: send only changed fields, a mandatory resumo, and — critically — do not touch a purpose that already has an open draft by a human or another agent. It also names the prerequisite (guard_login with edit permission). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (create_purpose, cancel_purpose_draft) for those cases.

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