Atualizar cliente

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful safety/auth requirement (ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and warns that the operation affects production, which is valuable. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what validation occurs, or what the response looks like.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the core action. Every element earns its place: the operation, the key field, the environment, and the write-flag prerequisite. No redundant wording or filler is present.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a completely open 'cliente' object, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. The agent knows the target key and that a write flag is required, but it does not know what customer fields are acceptable or what the update behavior entails.

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%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only clarifies that 'cod' is the identifier used to locate the customer. The 'cliente' object parameter is left completely unspecified: no required fields, allowed keys, or update semantics are described. This is a significant gap for an unstructured nested object.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Atualiza cliente' (updates customer). The qualifier '(por Cod)' indicates the operation targets an existing customer by its code, which helps distinguish it from create/list operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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 an important usage condition: it is a production operation that requires ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like cliente_criar or cliente_get. The usage guidance is mostly implied by the word 'Atualiza' and the key-based reference.

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