update_approval_policy

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that is_active=false deactivates the policy and that only changed fields should be sent, which affects how partial/repeated calls behave. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences in Portuguese: the first states the action and affected fields, the second states the critical deactivation behavior and the partial-update rule. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

For an update tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the core call requirements: resource, mutable fields, partial update semantics, and the is_active=false special case. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and a short update description can reasonably omit that.

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 each parameter; the description adds the partial-update convention that ties the optional fields together but gives no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses the verb 'Atualiza' (updates) with a specific resource 'política de aprovação' and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, stages, is_active), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling create/get/list approval policy tools, so it stops short of full 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?

It provides a clear partial-update instruction: 'Envie apenas os campos a alterar,' which tells the agent how to call the tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this over create_approval_policy or get_approval_policy, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage context is only implied.

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