agendamento_alterar

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Atualiza' (updates), implying mutation but offering no detail on side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for an informed agent decision.

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 sentence of 3 words, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be effective; it front-loads minimal information but fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity but insufficient substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields are updateable, the format of 'codigo', how the response looks, or any constraints. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters ('codigo' and 'dados') with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain what each parameter means or how to use them. 'dados' is an open object with additionalProperties, yet the description provides no hint about valid fields or structure. This forces the agent to guess.

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 'Atualiza um agendamento' clearly states the action (update) and resource (appointment). It is specific enough to convey the basic purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'agendamento_cadastrar' (create) or 'agendamento_detalhes' (details), which limits agent selection confidence.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing appointment code. The agent receives no context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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