atualizar_treino

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it is a partial update ("Campos omitidos ficam como estão"), it can only touch records this MCP created, and it requires prior user approval. It does not disclose what happens on an invalid evento_id or whether an external system rejects the change.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action and mutable fields come first, and the approval gate follows. Nothing is repeated from the name or 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 mutation tool this is mostly complete: safety profile is covered by annotations, return values by the output schema, and partial-update semantics are spelled out. The remaining gap is identity resolution — how atleta and evento_id are obtained and what happens if evento_id does not exist — which an agent needs before calling.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add real semantics for four fields by explaining that omitted/null values leave the existing value untouched (matching the null defaults), but the two required parameters, atleta and evento_id, are never explained or distinguished from the optional ones.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Altera um treino") and enumerates the mutable fields (data, nome, esporte, texto), plus a scope restriction to workouts created by this MCP, which separates it from apagar_treino/criar_treino by implication. It never explicitly names a sibling or an alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 chame depois que o usuário aprovar a alteração" gives a concrete precondition for invoking the tool, which is exactly the kind of gating rule an agent needs for a write operation. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over listar_treinos/criar_treino or what to do if evento_id is unknown.

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