up

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's main added value is the "only informed fields change" guarantee, which reassures the agent that unspecified fields survive. It does not surface the two-step preview/confirm requirement, the default notification side effect, or the fact that desc replaces rather than appends (that only lives in the schema).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the partial-update rule and the cm alternative. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, update semantics, and one key routing decision. The remaining gaps (confirmation flow, notification default, desc vs desc_add) are documented in the schema, so the definition is usable as-is.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's field list loosely maps to parameters (status, responsável, prazo, prioridade, %) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already specifies for alvos, cf, datas, or campos.

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?

"Altera campos de um ou vários work packages" gives a specific verb (update) and resource (work packages), then enumerates the editable fields (status, responsável, prazo, prioridade, %, campos personalizados). The opaque tool name "up" means the description must carry the whole burden, and it does so clearly. It does not broadly differentiate itself from siblings like new/rm/rel, though it does route one case to cm.

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?

"Só os campos informados mudam" sets the partial-update contract and "Para registrar progresso, prefira cm (comentário) a mexer na descrição" names an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it. What is missing is guidance on the preview/approval cycle (the cf parameter) and when multiple targets via 'alvos' should be used versus single edits.

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