Atualizar o motor no projeto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names exactly which artifacts are reinstalled and explicitly excludes index.html, css/site.css and js/site.js, so the agent knows what will and will not be overwritten. It omits whether existing customizations are backed up or lost, and what a failure looks like, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the affected files, followed by the explicit exclusions. Every 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and exclusions but leaves gaps: no indication of the parameter's format, reversibility/backup behavior, or what success returns. It is adequate but not complete for the risk profile of an overwrite operation.

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% for the single 'projeto' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does: '(ou num site transformado)' signals that 'projeto' can refer to a project or a transformed site, but it never states whether the value is a path, slug, or ID.

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 (reinstala) and the exact resources touched (imersao/imersao.js, imersao.css, Lenis), which clearly separates it from sibling site tools like ajustar_site or transformar_site. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting with them, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by comparison.

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 phrase 'com a versão deste MCP' implies the trigger is syncing the project's engine to the current MCP version, and '(ou num site transformado)' hints at the applicable target contexts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance relative to siblings such as ajustar_site or transformar_site.

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