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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses transactional atomicity ('é tudo ou nada'), duplicate-name rejection with the existing id returned, the AVISO about a talhão shared by two pluviômetros, and that writes go to upCampo. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations can't convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and then the mode rules; each paragraph is information-dense. Slightly verbose with some restatement of id semantics already in the schema, but nothing is wasted enough to drop a tier.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the failure-response content ('a resposta diz qual item e por quê'). Combined with the write-target and confirmation guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds meaning by restating id semantics (insert vs. alter vs. deactivate) and reinforcing the all-or-nothing and duplicate behaviors tied to those params. It stops short of adding syntax/format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('cadastrar pluviômetro') and immediately clarifies scope: rain gauges and the plots (talhões) each one covers. The reader can distinguish it from sibling cadastrar_* tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes all three modes: no `id` inserts, `id` alters only given fields, `id`+`desativar` deactivates. It also states batching (up to 50), the all-or-nothing rule, duplicate-name handling, and the mandate to show the list and confirm before calling.

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