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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: it does not require private reasoning, does not force agreement, does not publish, and does not persist the received content. The non-persistence and privacy posture are exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise supply, though it is silent on output shape and whether drafts are retrievable.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core verb and artifact before the behavioral caveats. Dense but each clause carries meaning; the middle sentence bundles three distinct behaviors without becoming bloated.

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 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the definition is behaviorally solid but thin on how to populate the inputs and what the produced draft looks like. Given the parameter count and complexity, more parameter-level orientation would be needed for a higher score.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for several fields: the six values listed map directly to the 'path' enum, and 'preserva incertezas', 'melhor ponto da posição examinada', and 'explicita o que permitiria revisão' clarify uncertainties, strongest_point and revision_condition. It still leaves 'tone', 'evidence_for' and 'evidence_against' unexplained in the prose.

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 concrete verb and artifact: it 'Compõe um rascunho portátil de dissenso' organized along six dissent paths, which is unambiguous and distinct from the conversational siblings (nexo_reply, nexo_open_conversation). However, it never names or contrasts itself against any sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when a different tool is preferable (e.g., why this over nexo_reply or nexo_create_thread). Usage is only implied by the dissent theme, leaving the agent to guess the context in which a portable dissent draft is appropriate.

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