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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does explain the external effect of enabling: anyone with the link can view items and download PDFs without login, which is valuable context. However, it omits permissions required to toggle the link, whether changes are reversible, and what the response looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and its consequence. The parenthetical explanation is useful and not wasteful, though the sentence is somewhat long and could be split for clarity.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. However, without annotations and with undocumented parameters, it lacks necessary details about permissions, return values, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent with gaps to fill by 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'diligência' to diligence_id and 'liga/desliga' to enabled, but never names or explains the parameters explicitly, leaving their exact semantics undocumented.

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 specific verb-resource pair: toggling the diligence's read link. It also clarifies the link's effect (view items, download PDFs, no login), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_diligence or create_diligence, so it misses the top score.

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 description explains what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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