Atualizar precatório (REST)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the local PJeCalc app must be running, the request body is an arbitrary free-form JSON object rather than a fixed shape, and the reference doc must be consulted for details. It does not, however, describe error behavior or what the returned object contains.

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?

A compact paragraph that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint path, then the DTO contract, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly dense (three ideas in one block) but wastes nothing.

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 an endpoint whose body is a free-form nested object and which has no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, the DTO type, example fields and a doc reference for the full contract. What is missing is a hint about the shape of the returned precatório, though the absence of an output schema limits how much blame this warrants.

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 technically 100% but the schema only says 'Objeto AtualizacaoPrecatorioDTO (JSON)' with additionalProperties: {} — it defines no fields at all. The description compensates by naming example fields (numeroPrecatorio, valor, dataBase, indices...) and pointing to references/API-REST.md, which is real added meaning over an empty schema.

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 concrete verb, resource and transport: POST to /pjecalc/servico/rest/atualizacao/precatorios, sending an AtualizacaoPrecatorioDTO and receiving the updated precatório via index correction. An agent can distinguish this from sibling calculation tools such as calculo_atualizar or the SIP-based rest_precatorios_sip* tools 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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requer o app em execução') and a documentation pointer ('Consulte references/API-REST.md'), which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the related precatório siblings (rest_precatorios_sip, rest_precatorios_sip_indices) or what input it expects the caller to have on hand. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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