sei_alterar_anotacao_bloco_assinatura

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), and is idempotent. The description adds version availability and a troubleshooting hint, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like required permissions or side effects. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 very brief with two sentences, each serving a purpose (action and version note). No redundant information. However, it is too sparse, missing important details that could be added without much length, so it slightly loses points for under-specification.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description still lacks essential context. It does not explain what an 'anotação' is in this domain, the relationship to the signature block, or what the output will contain. For a tool with three undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient to fully understand usage.

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 description provides no explanation of the three required parameters (id_bloco, documento, descricao). The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but without any context or format details, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. This is a critical gap.

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' and the resource 'anotação de documento em um bloco de assinatura', making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'sei_anotar_documento_bloco_assinatura' or 'sei_alterar_anotacao_bloco_interno', so a slight deduction.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the annotation must exist) or context where it should be preferred. The only extra information is about version and troubleshooting, which does not aid in tool selection.

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