alterar_categoria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Apenas os campos informados são enviados'), validation rules for codigo and codigo_dre, and the workaround for deletion via inativar. This is rich behavioral context beyond basic 'update' semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical behavioral notes. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation, explaining partial updates, giving validation rules, and noting the inativar workaround. There is no fluff.

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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: operation, field behavior, validation constraints, and deletion alternative. It doesn't specify return values or side effects, but those are often not crucial for an update operation. The cross-reference to incluir_categoria adds useful context.

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 schema covers 0% of parameters in its descriptions, so the tool description must compensate. It does add meaning for codigo (prefix-based type rules), codigo_dre (DRE level constraints), and inativar (purpose as deletion workaround). natureza and descricao are not detailed, but their names and schema titles make them reasonably self-explanatory.

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 opens with 'Altera uma categoria existente' (Alters an existing category), which clearly states the verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like incluir_categoria by implying an update operation, and the title 'alterar_categoria' is self-reinforcing.

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?

It explicitly references incluir_categoria for binding rules, and importantly states that since there is no delete method, one should call this tool with inativar=True to remove a category from use. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives.

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