sei_alterar_acompanhamento

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is available from mod-wssei 2.0.0 and suggests checking version on error, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or state changes beyond 'altera'.

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 brief sentences plus a version note and error tip. It front-loads the main action and efficiently covers key information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 simple parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately conveys the purpose and parameters. However, with zero schema description coverage, more detail on parameter constraints or return values would improve completeness.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'processo' is a protocol number or IdProcedimento, 'grupo' is the new group, and 'observacao' is the new observation. This adds meaning, though it could specify allowed formats or values.

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 the verb 'altera' (alters) and the resource 'acompanhamento especial de um processo', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'criar' and 'remover'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sei_criar_grupo_acompanhamento or sei_remover_acompanhamento. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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