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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that tags already present are preserved, that removing a tag does not delete the tag itself, that tagging runs task by task, that large batches may be truncated and return a pending list, and that one task's failure does not stop the others. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for safe invocation.

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 structure is front-loaded and bulleted, so it is easy to scan. It is slightly bloated by covering both aplicar and remover and by including the flattened-action metadata, which adds ambiguity rather than value.

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 batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies strong context about sources, batching, truncation, and partial failure. It is weakened by the mismatch between the described action parameter and the actual schema, which only contains task_ids and tag_ids.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: task_ids are task IDs obtained from agenda/task creation tools and do not require case_id; tag_ids are tag IDs from astrea_etiquetas and the tag must allow TASKS in restrictions. Both parameters are therefore fully explained.

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 resource (TAREFAS) and operation (apply/remove tags), and distinguishes task tagging from process tagging by naming astrea_etiquetar. However, it also covers removal despite the tool name being _aplicar, mentions an action parameter that is absent from the schema, and does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling astrea_tarefa_etiquetar_remover.

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?

It gives clear usage examples (classify/prioritize overdue tasks, restore tags) and an explicit alternative for processes (astrea_etiquetar). It also points to where task_ids and tag_ids come from. The main gap is that it does not clearly route removal calls to the sibling removal tool or reconcile the missing action parameter.

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