update_definitions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that clear_image_cache=True deletes downloaded PNGs and forces re-download, which is real behavioral value. However it omits whether definitions overwrite local customizations, whether network access is required, and what happens on failure.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the destructive-cache behavior is appended right after the primary action. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 1-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the parameter effect. It still leaves gaps on network/auth requirements, whether existing local edits survive, and what the operation returns, which matters for a potentially destructive sync.

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% and the sole parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: clear_image_cache is explained concretely (apaga os PNGs baixados, para que sejam baixados de novo na versão nova), giving the agent the consequence of setting it true.

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 (atualiza) and resource (itens e paletas) plus the source (repositório oficial do gerador LPC). An agent can tell it is a sync/refresh of definitions, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling clear_cache, whose scope overlaps via clear_image_cache.

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?

Implies the usage context (picking up new items and corrections), which is a legitimate when-to-use signal, but never states prerequisites, network requirements, or explicitly when to prefer it over clear_cache. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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