sei_alterar_documento_interno

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it modifies metadata (not content) and includes a version-check hint. No contradictions, but no deep behavioral disclosure like authorization needs or side effects.

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 structured with a lead sentence, a bullet-like list of parameters (though in paragraph form), version info, and an error hint. It is fairly concise with no redundant sentences, but could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., using actual bullets).

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not mention what is returned. Given the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and the simplicity of updating metadata, the description covers usage adequately but lacks output expectations.

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 description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains each parameter's purpose, lists allowed values for 'nivel_acesso' (0,1,2), and notes the conditional requirement for 'hipotese_legal' when level is restrito/sigiloso. This goes far beyond the raw 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?

The description explicitly states 'Altera metadados de um documento interno (não o conteúdo HTML).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'sei_editar_secao' which alters content. The verb 'alterar' and resource 'documento interno' are specific.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Para alterar o conteúdo, use sei_editar_secao.' It also hints at debugging by suggesting 'use sei_versao' on unexpected errors. However, it does not list exclusions or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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