atualizar_expeditto

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the post-update requirement to restart the AI app or reconnect Expeditto before the new version takes effect, plus the need for explicit confirmation before setting confirmado=true.

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, no waste: purpose first, then the confirmation constraint, then the post-condition. Everything is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive action with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, confirmation gating, and the required restart. Minor gaps remain (e.g. failure behavior, that the check-only path is a sibling), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 semantics of 'confirmado', and it does explain the intent: set confirmado=true only when the docente requests it. It does not clarify what confirmado=false (the default) does, but the safety-critical meaning of the flag is conveyed.

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 ('Atualiza o Expeditto para a versão mais nova'), so an agent knows this performs the upgrade, not just a check. It does not name the related sibling 'verificar_atualizacao', so sibling differentiation relies on the audience already knowing the update-check tool exists.

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?

Explicitly constrains when to call: 'Só chame com confirmado=true se o docente pedir', i.e. only on explicit user request. This is a genuine when-to-use guard. It stops short of pointing to 'verificar_atualizacao' as the tool for merely checking, leaving that routing to inference.

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