alterar_grupo_categoria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious limitation (type change not allowed), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits other important traits such as permissions, error behavior, or reversibility, so it's only moderately transparent.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action and adds a crucial caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter explanations, error conditions, and any return value details, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It indirectly explains 'natureza' by stating the type change restriction, but it says nothing about 'codigo' or 'descricao'. This is a significant gap, providing minimal semantic help beyond parameter names.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Altera um grupo totalizador de categorias' (Alters a totalizer group of categories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'alterar_categoria' by specifying the entity type ('grupo totalizador').

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 provides a clear context for use (altering a totalizer group) and explicitly states a key exclusion: the tool cannot change the type (receita/despesa) of an existing group. This gives useful guidance on when not to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools.

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