sei_alterar_bloco_assinatura

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of version info and error handling provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or behavioral traits like whether the tool immediately persists changes. The description is consistent with annotations.

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 sentences: the primary action and a note on version/compatibility. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 2 required parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema (unknown content), the description is insufficient. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., block must exist, user permissions), expected effects, or return value details. Annotations partially compensate, but the description omits critical context for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides only parameter names and types (both strings). The description does not explain what id_bloco or descricao represent, their valid formats, or any constraints. This leaves the agent with minimal semantic understanding beyond the names.

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 tool alters a signature block's description ("Altera descrição de um bloco de assinatura"). The verb 'alterar' and resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like criar (create) or retornar (return). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sei_alterar_bloco_interno (internal block), but context implies it's for signature blocks.

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 includes a version availability note and a troubleshooting step (use sei_versao on error), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sei_criar_bloco_assinatura or sei_alterar_bloco_interno. There are no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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