Regerar ocorrências das verbas

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing WHAT is at risk: manually edited occurrences are overwritten unless manter_alteracoes=true, with regeneration of everything as the default. This concretely explains the destructive behavior rather than just repeating the hint.

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?

Three tight fragments: operation and scope first, then the usage trigger, then the parameter effect. No filler sentences; the destructive/parameter caveat is front-loaded where the agent will see it.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: when to call it, that it is destructive, and how to preserve manual edits. Only minor gaps remain (no prerequisite/permission notes, no mention of what regeneration returns).

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note on manter_alteracoes largely restates the schema ('padrão: regera tudo'). The UI-path phrasing ('selecionar todas, inclusive reflexos ativos') implies an internal scope but does not clarify parameter syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 names a specific action ('Regerar' ocorrências das verbas) and describes the scope ('selecionar todas, inclusive reflexos ativos'), which is more than a restatement of the title. An agent can understand it regenerates calculation-item occurrences. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like calculo_atualizar or calculo_validar, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Necessário depois de importar ou de mudar parâmetros' gives a clear trigger condition for when to invoke the tool. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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