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

The description adds '[write, altera dados]' and the POST method, making the mutating nature of the operation clear beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as safety, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond writing data.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the core action, includes the endpoint, and adds a short behavioral flag. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

Given no output schema, no parameter details, and minimal behavioral context, this description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The account and body parameters remain ambiguous, and no expected response or side-effect information is supplied.

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?

The input schema has two parameters, body and account, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or required content. The agent cannot tell what account means or what shape body should take.

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 'Criar motivo de perda' (create loss reason) along with the exact POST endpoint, making the verb and resource explicit. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like business_loss_reasons_get, _list, _update, and _delete by identifying a distinct create action.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as updating or deleting loss reasons, nor does it distinguish this from related create actions like datacrazy_businesses_actions_lose_create.

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