alterar_fornecedor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It merely says 'Altera dados' (changes data) without explaining whether it performs partial or full updates, what happens if the supplier doesn't exist, or any side effects or permissions required.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-sentence overview. It lacks essential context like how to identify the supplier, whether fields are optional individually, and what the response contains.

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% and the description mentions none of the 12 parameters. The agent gets no semantic help beyond the raw field names (e.g., 'cep', 'email') and cannot know which identifiers are needed to target the supplier.

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 action ('Altera dados' = changes data) and the target resource ('fornecedor existente' = existing supplier), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for creating (incluir_fornecedor) or listing (listar_fornecedores) suppliers. However, it lacks any explicit differentiation beyond the resource name, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing supplier code) or distinction from similar update tools for other entities.

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