Editar Cartão de Crédito

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the requirement for confirm parameter and denotes "manual" edit, but does not explain behavior like partial updates or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the action. However, given the complexity of 10 parameters, it is under-specified. The structure is clear but brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 with 10 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and annotations present, the description provides minimal context. It fails to explain when to use this tool, what the "manual" edit entails, or how to handle the many optional fields. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but overall completeness is low.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for the `confirm` parameter (requires true). It does not explain any other parameters (id, logo, name, etc.), leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 title and description clearly state the tool edits a credit card. The verb "Edita" (edits) and resource "cartão" (card) are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete, but the name itself is self-explanatory.

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?

The description only mentions a requirement for the `confirm` parameter to be true, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. delete or create). No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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