atualizar_nota

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nunca apaga' and explains the mechanism (appends only new sentences in a dated 'Atualizações' section). That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations; it stops short of covering permissions or edge cases.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the core constraint, and every sentence (append behavior, non-destruction, trigger, alternative) earns its place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and when to prefer an alternative, leaving only parameter-level detail unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It conveys the dedup semantics ('só as frases que a nota ainda não tem'), which maps onto the so_novidades boolean default, but never explains the 'nota' target or 'texto' payload, nor what so_novidades=false does.

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 (atualiza) and resource (nota) plus the key differentiator: it updates an EXISTING note rather than creating a new one. It also names the sibling it contrasts with ('use registrar_decisao') so the agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('Use quando surgir detalhe, resultado ou correção sobre algo já registrado') and an explicit when-not with an alternative ('Se a decisão MUDOU, use registrar_decisao com substitui'). Both dimensions of guidance are present.

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