atualizar_endereco_pelo_cpf_e_cep

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the basic action but omits important details: whether it overwrites existing addresses, what happens if the client or CEP is not found, or if the operation is idempotent. The ambiguity around 'vincula' (links) versus 'atualizar' (update) adds confusion.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary; no redundant or filler content.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description lacks completeness regarding side effects and error conditions. It does not mention whether the tool creates, updates, or replaces address data, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'cpf' identifies the client and 'cep' is used for address lookup, which goes beyond parameter names. However, it does not specify formats or constraints (e.g., CPF length, CEP format).

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 tool's function: it looks up an address via CEP and links it to a client identified by CPF. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'atualizar_endereco_direto' (which likely updates address directly) and 'buscar_cliente_por_cep_ou_cpf' (which only searches). However, it could more explicitly mention that it updates the client's address.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., client must exist) or when not to use it. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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