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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing exactly what replace overwrites, the 8000-character ceiling, and that the text is not surfaced to the virtual agent or customers — meaningful context for a destructive write. It doesn't mention permission requirements beyond what the schema says for target_user_id.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences covering the action, the mode choice, the limit, and the audience caveat — each one carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Covers the essentials for a 3-parameter write with no output schema: what is written, how it combines with existing text, size limits, and visibility. Admin-only scoping of target_user_id is left entirely to the schema, which is the only notable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mode, summary and target_user_id. The description's mode explanation and length limit duplicate rather than extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Grava o Resumo do negocio da conta") and the write semantics are unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name its read counterpart get_business_summary, but the naming pair makes the distinction self-evident.

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 replace/append choice is explained with the default, which is genuine usage guidance for the main behavioral decision. However, there is no guidance on when to write a summary at all versus reading it, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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