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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavior: add_to_kb creates a KB document and triggers automatic reindexing plus marks the gap resolved, and target_user_id has an authorization restriction with an implicit default. It still does not describe what a resolve/dismiss returns or whether dismissal is reversible.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the action set and then the scoping/authorization rules; every clause carries information. The '🧠 INSIGHTS DE ATENDIMENTO' label is decorative noise and the mixed-language phrasing adds minor friction.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key side effect (KB write plus reindex) and the multi-tenant authorization model, which are the two things an agent could get wrong. Return values are not described, but nothing else critical is missing.

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% and every parameter already carries a Portuguese description, including the admin-only target_user_id and the resolution requirement. The description restates that target_user_id defaults to the authenticated account, which reinforces but does not materially extend 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?

States a specific verb set (resolve, dismiss, add to KB) on a specific resource (a knowledge gap registered by list_knowledge_gaps), and even names the sibling tool that generates the input. An agent can distinguish it from create_kb_document or list_knowledge_gaps immediately.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to list_knowledge_gaps for gap_id and gives the condition for target_user_id (platform admin only, otherwise own account). It does not spell out when to choose resolve vs dismiss vs add_to_kb beyond the enum names, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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