feegow_movement_product

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

The description mentions it is a write operation ('altera dados') and requires a specific environment variable, which partially addresses behavioral transparency. However, it does not disclose any side effects, response behavior, or idempotency. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 very concise, using a single sentence with appended notes. It is efficient and uses bracketed labels for quick scanning. However, the structure could be improved by placing the most critical information (purpose) first.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested input schema and the lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the movement logic, field relationships, error handling, or result format. This is inadequate for a write tool with many sibling tools.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description adds limited value. It reinforces the date format requirement, but does not explain the semantics of the nested fields or the 'query' parameter beyond what the schema offers.

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 it registers product movement in stock, which is specific enough to distinguish from entry/exit tools. The HTTP endpoint and tags further clarify the resource. However, it could explicitly differentiate from feegow_entry_product and feegow_exit_product.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like entry/exit. It does mention the date format and write permission requirement, but no exclusionary context or use-case description.

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