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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses asynchronous batch processing with a delay of a few seconds, internal batching in a single call, that remover does not delete the tag itself, and the prerequisite that tags must already exist. Annotations declare it is a non-readonly mutation, and the description complements this well. It does not cover partial-failure behavior or permissions, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose with a bulleted breakdown of action and parameters; each line carries information. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds a distinct fact (routing, action semantics, batching, prerequisites).

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers routing, prerequisites, async behavior, and parameter meaning. Gaps remain around error/partial-failure handling and return values, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that case_ids are process ids (pointing to astrea_processos) and tag_ids are tag ids (pointing to astrea_etiquetas), and that both accept multiple values. This meaningfully clarifies both parameters despite no schema descriptions.

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 (aplicar/remover etiquetas) and resource (PROCESSOS), with the batch scope explicit. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling astrea_tarefa_etiquetar for tasks, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (classificar/higienizar a carteira, marcar a área de centenas de processos) and names the alternative tool (astrea_tarefa_etiquetar) with the condition that selects it. The action semantics (aplicar adds, remover removes without deleting the tag itself) are also spelled out.

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