update_schema

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, read-write), the description discloses the critical behavioral trait that schema_data is an entire replacement ('substitui o anterior por inteiro'), warning against partial payloads. It also adds validation constraints that apply at write time (endpoint.name equals tool_definition.name for api_config). No contradiction with annotations exists; full replacement of data is distinct from destructive resource deletion.

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 text is three dense sentences: purpose, mutable fields, and type-specific format constraints. It is front-loaded and every clause contributes; no filler or repetition of annotation content.

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 a 4-param update with no output schema, the description covers the operation, replacement semantics, and per-type payload requirements, and points to create_schema for structure. It could be more explicit about when to choose update_schema over create/delete siblings, but the remaining inference is straightforward.

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?

All four parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description raises value by specifying the api_config equality requirement and the persona_config wrapper format, which are not derivable from the generic schema_data object type.

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 names the operation ('Atualiza') and the resource ('um schema existente') and enumerates the mutable fields: nome, dados, descrição. It does not explicitly name or contrast with create_schema/delete_schema, though 'existente' makes the core distinction from creation implicit.

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 clearly frames the tool for already-existing schemas and gives concrete payload-format guidance for api_config and persona_config, plus the full-replacement rule. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives statement, but the context is unambiguous enough for tool selection.

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