feegow_update_benefit_plan

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation that alters data and requires the FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES environment variable. It also reveals the HTTP method and endpoint. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not cover side effects, idempotency, or partial update behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short and front-loaded with the essential purpose. It includes technical notes in brackets. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool has multiple optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain return values or nuances like which parameters are required vs. optional beyond the schema. Given the schema coverage is good, the description is acceptable but leaves some context unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 updates a benefit card plan, using the verb 'Altera' (changes) and specifying the resource 'plano do cartão de benefícios'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feegow_create_benefit_plan and feegow_list_benefit_plans by indicating it is a write operation that modifies existing data.

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 implies usage for updating plans and indicates a prerequisite (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like creating a new plan or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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