feegow_edit_billing_guide

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly states it is a write operation and currently limited to SADT, and notes exclusions. This is good transparency for a mutation tool, though it could mention potential side effects or error conditions.

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?

Description is a single sentence with clear tags for domain, action, exclusions, write requirement, and HTTP endpoint. No redundancy; every part earns its place.

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?

The description explains the action and limitations but does not mention the response format or error handling. With no output schema, the agent may need to infer return behavior. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the current restriction to billing_type_id=2 (SADT), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent avoid invalid calls.

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 edits attributes of a billing guide ('guia de convênio'), specifies current limitation to SADT, and lists exclusions (procedures, attachments, professionals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like feegow_insert_billing_guide and feegow_get_billing_guide.

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 includes the write requirement (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and scope limitation (SADT only), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_insert_billing_guide for creation or feegow_get_billing_guide for retrieval. The exclusions implicitly guide usage.

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