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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual effects: creates a MaintenanceTicket, and with block_room=true also creates a calendar block and marks the room OUT_OF_ORDER — a side effect an agent could not infer from destructiveHint=false. It also states required scope (operations:write) and risk level (low), which matters for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 core action and the block_room qualifier, followed by a compact structured scope/risk/effects/availability line that reads like a deliberate header. Dense but every clause (scope, risk, effects, availability) carries operational weight; no filler sentences.

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 an 8-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, required scope, risk class and availability, which is the information an agent most needs before calling. The remaining gap is the return value — it never says whether the created ticket's identifier is returned, which matters for chaining into update_maintenance_ticket.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description has to compensate — and it only does so for two of them: habitation_id (optional linkage) and block_room (whose consequence, calendar block plus OUT_OF_ORDER, is genuinely new information). title, category, due_date, location, priority and description are left entirely to the bare 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 and resource ('Abre um chamado de manutenção') and immediately qualifies the two creation modes: a plain ticket, or one linked to a habitação with a calendar block when block_room=true. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (update_maintenance_ticket / list_maintenance), but the create-vs-update distinction is unambiguous from the text.

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 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização (escopo não concedido ou papel sem o módulo)' line is a concrete when-not-to-use signal that most definitions lack, and the block_room clause gives the condition that selects the heavier variant. It stops short of pointing to an alternative tool (e.g. update_maintenance_ticket or list_maintenance), so it is not a full 5.

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