feegow_edit_voucher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados'), requires the environment variable FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and uses HTTP PUT. It does not detail side effects or irreversible actions, but the write requirement and method are clearly stated.

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, efficiently structured sentence covering purpose, optionality, constraints, and HTTP method. No redundant words; all information is pertinent.

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 does not mention return values or success/failure behavior. For a mutation tool with no output schema, agents may benefit from knowing what the response contains. Despite good annotations on other aspects, this omission limits completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that all fields except id are optional, specifying enum values for tipoValor ('V' for money, 'P' for percentage), and providing date format guidance ('yyyy-mm-dd'), which is not in the 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?

The description clearly states 'Edita um voucher existente', which is a specific verb (edit) and resource (voucher). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_voucher, cancel_voucher, and list_vouchers.

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 notes that all fields except id are optional and provides format hints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when needing to cancel, use feegow_cancel_voucher). Context is implied but not explicit.

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