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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the fan-out side effects (email, Telegram, webhook to subscribers), that status=resolved closes the incident and flips affected services back to operational, that resolved incidents cannot be reopened, and enumerates error conditions (not_found, already_resolved, invalid_body, rate_limited with a concrete 30/hour ceiling). It also warns that the text becomes public and must be confirmed with the user first.

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 core action and its side effects are front-loaded, followed by routing guidance, id sourcing, and errors in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries operational value (rate limit, no-reopen rule, confirm-before-publish); the errors list is the only part that could be tightened.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it mutates, who gets notified, the state transition for resolved, irreversibility, id provenance, and expected failure modes. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying `status=resolved` to concrete consequences (incident closed, services restored) and by explaining where `id` originates. It doesn't add format or length guidance for `mensagem` beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: posts an update to the PUBLIC incident on the status page and notifies subscribers, mirroring the panel's "Postar update". It explicitly separates itself from publicar_ocorrencia (which creates the incident) and notes that the private occurrence is untouched. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (report progress on an already-published incident, or close it) and when-not-to-use (use publicar_ocorrencia to create from an outage; the private occurrence isn't changed here). It even documents where to obtain the id (listar_ocorrencias, publicar_ocorrencia, ver_conta → statusPage.incidentesAbertos).

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