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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: start is interpreted in server timezone (UTC), end defaults to start+30 minutes, responsible_id omission may hide the event from the attorney's calendar, and repeat creates a recurring series in one call. This is strong context for a mutation tool, though it does not describe the return value or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a scannable bullet list. Every parameter explanation earns its place by adding format, default, or behavioral nuance, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description explains core semantics and important defaults, but it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., the created compromisso ID) and omits the plural parameters. The missing output information is a notable gap since no output schema exists to compensate.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden. It explains 8 of the 10 parameters well, including ISO format, defaults, and behavioral caveats. It does not cover the plural variants case_ids and responsible_ids, which are missing from the parameter documentation entirely, so the coverage is strong but incomplete.

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 ('Cria') and resource ('COMPROMISSO/evento na agenda'), with the additional scope that it must be linked to an Astrea process. It is clear and likely distinguishable from edit/delete siblings by the 'criar' verb, but it does not explicitly contrast with astrea_tarefa_criar or astrea_andamento_criar, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 implies use for creating calendar appointments/events tied to a process, and gives helpful lookup directions ('ver astrea_processos', 'ver astrea_responsaveis'). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as astrea_tarefa_criar or astrea_compromisso_editar, and no exclusion criteria.

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