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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the access level granted (view and edit all diligências) and the external side effect (an invitation email is sent). It omits failure modes such as what happens when the person is already a member, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero waste, with the purpose and permission scope front-loaded ahead of the usage constraint. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or schema.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, granted permissions, the email side effect, and a consent guard — enough to call it correctly. It could add duplicate-member behavior, but no annotations exist to fill any gap, so this is close to complete.

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 0%, so the single 'email' property is undocumented in the schema. The description only implicitly signals that the parameter is the invitee's address via 'Convida alguém' and 'Envia e-mail de convite'; it never states the expected format or whose address it is explicitly.

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 and resource ('Convida alguém para o workspace') and adds the resulting permission scope ('vê e edita todas as diligências'), so an agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling remove_member or from share, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

The clause 'só use se o usuário pediu' is an explicit, actionable when-to-use restriction that prevents proactive inviting — exactly the kind of gating an agent needs for a side-effecting action. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use conditions beyond user consent.

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