batman_update_developer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It provides zero information about side effects, whether the update is partial or full, error handling, permissions, or return behavior. The agent has no idea what happens on success or failure.

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 short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specification, not conciseness. It fails to provide essential information that an agent needs, so while economical, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no other context.

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 is extremely incomplete. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the update semantics, parameter roles, and expected outcome. It does none of these, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does nothing to explain the parameters (id, name, priority). It does not indicate that id is required, what name and priority represent, or how they relate to the update operation. The description adds no value over the bare 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 'Atualizar um desenvolvedor' (Update a developer) states the action and resource clearly, distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings by the verb 'update'. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not clarify the scope of the update (e.g., which fields are updatable), making it somewhat vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create or delete. There are no prerequisites, no mention of requiring an existing developer, and no exclusions, leaving the agent without context on appropriate usage.

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