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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description says 'delete_check_in (code)' which implies a deletion operation, but it does not disclose what happens when deleting a check-in, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action name.

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 short and lists actions in a compact format, but it is not well-structured for the specific tool. The '[Flattened action: delete_check_in]' line is helpful but the overall description is cluttered with multiple actions that are not relevant to this tool. It could be more focused.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations providing safety details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites. The tool is a mutation (delete) but lacks context on what is deleted and how to use it correctly. Sibling tools exist for related operations, but no cross-referencing is provided.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'code' for delete_check_in but does not explain what 'code' represents (e.g., ticket code, check-in code). The 'data' and 'account' parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose unclear. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 lists multiple actions (do_check_in, delete_check_in, create_invitations, delete_invitations, delete) but the tool name and flattened action indicate this is specifically for delete_check_in. The purpose is muddled by listing all actions without clarifying which one this tool executes. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like guru_etickets_write_delete or guru_etickets_write_do_check_in.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Mutações em e-tickets Guru' (mutations in Guru e-tickets) but does not specify when to use delete_check_in vs other delete operations. Sibling tools like guru_etickets_write_delete and guru_etickets_write_delete_invitations exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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