Atualizar modelos extraídos do PJe-Calc

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 context beyond them: the verbas path creates a temporary cálculo, exports, builds the library and then deletes the temporary. It stops short of stating what is overwritten if the models already exist.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the invocation guideline, with the two modes parenthetically scoped. Dense but no padding; the nested clauses are long but each carries operational detail.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, both modes, preconditions and timing. It only lacks failure/overwrite consequences, which limits it below a 5.

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 100% and the enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by tying each enum value to its runtime precondition (PJe-Calc running vs stopped) and to the different data sources (Expresso verbas vs H2 municipality/CNJ/holiday tables).

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 (Refaz) and resource (os modelos usados pelo gerador a partir da instalação), then splits it into two clearly named modes ("verbas" vs "catalogos") with distinct behavior. An agent can distinguish this rebuild-models tool from sibling update tools like tabelas_atualizar without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ("Use após atualizar o PJe-Calc ou sincronizar tabelas") and, more valuably, the operational precondition per mode: verbas requires PJe-Calc running, catalogos requires it STOPPED. It does not name alternative sibling tools to prefer instead, so it falls short of the top mark.

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