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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Adiciona' merely confirms a write operation without adding new behavioral context. Missing details include whether duplicate movements are allowed, what side effects occur, authorization requirements, or what response is returned.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. Its brevity is partly responsible for leaving important details unstated, but the structure itself is efficient for a simple creation tool.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a vague reference to the official API for the process link, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The tool is one of many similar create_* siblings, so more detail about required fields and expected behavior is needed.

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, but it only vaguely says to link the process via an official API field and use 'extra' for remaining fields. It does not name the concrete field names or specify the required shape of 'extra', leaving the agent unable to construct a correct invocation confidently.

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 clearly states that the tool adds a manual movement to a process ('Adiciona uma movimentação manual a um processo'), which distinguishes it from sibling create tools like advbox_create_customer or advbox_create_lawsuit. However, the critical process-link field is only referenced as 'campo conforme a API oficial', leaving the exact binding mechanism underspecified.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Sibling tools such as advbox_lawsuit_movements or advbox_last_movements could serve as read/alternative paths, but no comparisons or usage context are provided.

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